Skip to main content
Category

Joseph Silke

Joseph Silke: The start of a new approach to China?

By Centre Write, Foreign, Joseph Silke

In 2015, David Cameron heralded the elaborate state visit of dictator President Xi as symbolic of a new “golden era” of relations between the United Kingdom and China. This week, inspired by the historic success of the European Research Group (ERG) in securing the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, a group of Conservative MPs have launched the China Research Group (CRG). In much the same way that the ERG transformed the political landscape on Europe, the new CRG hopes to affect a shift in the British approach to China relations. 

While the new group intends to emulate the successes of the ERG, it starts from a very different place. The ERG was founded by a group of fringe radicals, led by backbencher Sir Michael Spicer, and it would be years before the group became mainstream within the Conservative Party. The new CRG is headed by Tom Tugendhat, the widely-respected Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who said that the group will “promote fresh thinking” by examining China’s long-term economic and diplomatic aims, especially with regard to developing nations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has become a watershed in relations between China and the West. As millions get infected and thousands die across the Western World, scepticism of China’s role on the global stage is only growing. The Chinese Communist Party has been accused of negligence for allowing wet markets to continue trading despite the public health risks, prompting the Prime Minister’s own partner Carrie Symonds to call for stronger action. Moreover, the regime has been condemned for attempting to conceal the outbreak by repressing information and persecuting whistleblowers, allowing the virus to spread around the world more easily. 

For critics, China’s many malign activities have gone unchallenged for far too long: currency manipulation; intellectual property theft; the cultural genocide of the Uighurs; the violation of international waters with the construction of artificial islands; the continued support for rogue states like North Korea; the list goes on. In the UK, particular scorn has been directed towards the tepid UK response to the recent crackdown on political freedoms in Hong Kong. The 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration commits China to safeguarding democratic norms within the British former colony until 2047. 

As the now-second largest economy in the world, China has undeniably proven to be an economic success story, but that is what makes its rise all the more concerning. It’s more pragmatic approach, of ditching the old communist dogma which contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union and China’s creation of an authoritarian pseudo-market system, makes it a more pernicious rival and credible alternative for those disillusioned with liberal democracy, both on the left and the right and especially in poorer regions of the world.  

China has been actively consolidating its geopolitical position for years without much impediment. The Belt and Road Initiative launched in 2013 has been especially effective at carving out a dominant market position for the rising superpower. Its massive infrastructure investments in other countries have the dual effect of securing favourable relations with foreign nations as well as often providing outposts for further Chinese operations. Moreover, China has an ever-growing foreign media presence, buying up vast swathes of African media to exert influence over the flow of information there.   

This is not to say that opportunities for fruitful collaboration don’t remain between the UK and China. Some cooperation will always be necessary in such a globalised world. Nor does a new approach to the Chinese regime ever excuse any form of discrmination towards Chinese people under any circumstances. The new CRG group has stressed that they are not “anti-China” and a distinction must be made between the regime of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people. Indeed, Tugendhat has accused the ruling party of prioritising its own survival over the welfare of the people. 

A more proactive response to China should not involve taking reactionary steps that ultimately harm the UK either. President Trump’s approach has been to pursue protectionism and isolationism, both of which do more to undermine the global role of the United States than anything else. It is right, for example, that the UK has continued to fund the World Health Organisation despite valid concerns that it has been far too cosy with Beijing. Retreating from the world stage will do little to safeguard the liberal world order. 

The coronavirus pandemic means latent concerns about the role of China on the global stage have now come to the fore. The ERG transformed the Conservative Party into a solidly Eurosceptic force and it is possible that the CRG will succeed in directing Conservative policy in a more China-sceptic direction. China’s rapid expansion has demonstrated that those who cherish liberal democracy cannot afford to be complacent. If the Western World wants to protect itself and its values, it is going to have to start acting like it.

Joseph is Research and Communications Assistant at Bright Blue. [Image: Number 10]

Joseph Silke: Separate support?

By BB Research, Centre Write, Joseph Silke, Welfare

In the final days of the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum campaign, the three main unionist parties promised that new powers would be devolved from Westminster Holyrood in the event of a ‘No’ vote. ‘The Vow’ committed to making the Scottish Parliament ‘the most powerful devolved assembly in the world’. Following the rejection of separation at the ballot box, Prime Minister David Cameron established the Smith Commission to determine how to fulfil the promise of the transfer of powers. The Scotland Act 2016 delivered on the recommendations, including the transfer of a range of powers over social security. 

The legislation mandates the transfer of control over 11 benefits, with the Scottish Parliament able to make changes to their value, eligibility and scope. Collectively, this amounts to around £3.5 billion of yearly social security payments to be paid to roughly 1.4 million Scots. The transfer of their delivery from the British Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to Social Security Scotland (SSS) is ongoing, and should be fully completed by 2024. 

Today, Bright Blue Scotland releases the first major report that looks into Scottish public attitudes towards social security since the post-referendum settlement: Separate support? Attitudes to social security in Scotland, addressing a major research gap. 

Drawing on public polling of the Scottish public conducted by Opinium, the report explores the broad attitudes of Scots on the purpose and effectiveness of the social security system, their views on specific reforms that have been or will be introduced by the Scottish Government and their support for a range of potential future reforms. The report also breaks down these views by social, economic and political divides.

It is important to note that the research was conducted prior to the outbreak of coronavirus; before the unprecedented expansion of the state to support the livelihoods of individuals during the pandemic. This research, therefore, acts as an indication of the baseline of public opinion pre-COVID-19. While it is impossible to know at this stage what the long term consequences of coronavirus will be for the relationship between the state and individuals, it is clear that the economic disruption means that more people are now reliant on the state for social security than at any point in living memory. 

Purpose and effectiveness of social security

The research has found that a clear majority of Scots (70%) believe there is quite a lot of real poverty in Scotland, with 62% believing that poverty has gotten worse over the past decade and almost half (47%) believing that the problem will continue to get worse over the next decade. It is unsurprising, therefore, that 64% of Scots believe further cuts to social security would be damaging and more Scots are likely to want spending to be increased rather than decreased, although there is division over how such increases should be funded. 

Devolution of social security

Devolution of social security is generally popular, with 60% of Scots overall and even 43% of ‘No’ voters wanting the Scottish Parliament to decide most or all of Scotland’s social security policy, although this is supported by only 29% of Conservative voters. Awareness among the Scottish public of the benefits that are being devolved is low, however, with a majority of Scots unable to correctly identify what has been devolved. 

There is notable support for social security principles commonly associated with centre-right: that social security should promote personal responsibility (72%); that social security should only be a safety net (59%); that social security should be conditional on strict requirements (58%); and that those who have paid income tax and NI for a greater number of years should receive greater help (64%). 

A majority of Scots also supported the principles introduced by the Scottish Government, including that social security is a public service (65%), that it is a human right (57%), and that it should be actively promoted to those who are eligible (61%).

Universal Credit

Most Scots support the presence of conditionality (71%) and sanctioning (52%) for unemployed Universal Credit claimants and some support for conditionality and sanctioning for other claimant groups, such as parents of young children (38%), the self-employed (40%), and part-time, low-income working people (37%). Labour and SNP voters tended to be divided on conditionality and sanctioning measures for different claimant groups, while Conservative voters tended to support them. 

Most Scots support the flexibility of Scottish Choices for Universal Credit in terms of frequency of payments (62%) and the ability to have their housing element paid directly to their landlord (74%). A majority (62%) would also like the claimants to have the ability to split their payment across different members of the household, which has been promised by the Scottish Government, but yet to be delivered.

Devolved benefits

There is significant support for devolved benefits for those on low income, including for fuel (79%), funeral (71%) and council tax costs (73%). There is plurality support for the expansion of grants offered to low-income parents of young children through the Best Start scheme and most Scots support introducing the Scottish Child Payment. 

Scots also support the Scottish Government’s reforms to reduce face-to-face assessments for disability benefits with 47% of Scots believing the current application process is too demanding. However, Scots are agnostic about who carries out the assessment service, with more Scots (45%) believing that it does not matter whether a public or a private company is involved.

Improving social security

Bright Blue Scotland has found majority support for the following further, alternative reforms:

  • Bright Blue Scotland’s idea of an additional income supplement for those on low incomes based on previous National Insurance contributions (59%)
  • Bright Blue Scotland’s idea of an establishment of an independent compensation scheme for benefit claimants that have been failed by the DWP, such as on timeliness of benefit payment (57%)
  • A compulsory employment support scheme for people with disabilities who are able to work (55%)
  • Government-funded incentives to employers for offering work to long-term unemployed (63%)
  • Attracting the highest level of support, allowing carers to keep more of their Carers Allowance depending on their earnings (65%)

Finally, many Scots (45%) are open to the idea of introducing a universal basic income (UBI). The idea, which has been touted on radical fringes for generations, has been discussed more widely in the context of coronavirus. Amongst the funding options proposed for UBI, however, there was a marked lack of consensus, with higher income taxes on those who earn more than £50,000 (21%) and a new tax on wealth (20%) being the most popular choices. 

The report demonstrates that the social security principles and reforms of the Scottish Government, prior to the COVID-19 crisis, were broadly in line with Scottish public attitudes. However, there is also public support for constructing the social security system based on a range of principles, including those associated with the centre-right, and for alternative reforms to the Scottish social security system. With elections for the Scottish Parliament coming up next year, this research provides a critical insight into the attitudes of the Scottish people, made all the more timely by the increased prominence of social security issues due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Joseph Silke is Research and Communications Assistant at Bright Blue. 

Joseph Silke: The legacy of coronavirus shouldn’t be the expansion of the state

By Centre Write, Coronavirus, Joseph Silke

This week marked 100 days since the first case of disease caused by a novel coronavirus was reported by the Chinese authorities to the World Health Organisation (WHO). In that time, the world has changed beyond recognition, with billions of people now under strict lockdown to slow the spread of the disease now known as COVID-19. What started in Wuhan has spread like a forest fire across the globe, engulfing even the most prosperous of nations in a pestilential inferno. 

The result for the United Kingdom, like in much of the rest of the Western world, has been a massive increase in state intervention in the economy. While we are confined to our homes, left wondering what the ramifications will be for the future, the deficit is once again ballooning by the billions and will need to be addressed. To ensure the nation’s long term prosperity, the legacy of the coronavirus pandemic should not be a lasting expansion of the state.

Boris Johnson, who had seemed so unassailable after his stonking victory in the general election only a handful of months ago, still cannot return to work, though thankfully is now out of hospital altogether. The nation came together, across political divides, to wish the Prime Minister a speedy recovery, with his health personifying the health of the nation at a time of crisis. 

His hospitalisation came as a reminder of the vulnerability of all members of society to the virus. Even those at the top, including the Prime Minister himself, can be afflicted. It is also the case, however, that the virus has posed a disproportionately high risk to the poorer members of our society, and the state has had a vital role to play in protecting them.   

Not all people can work from home, and generally it’s those on lower incomes whose jobs are most at risk from the economic shutdown that containing the transmission of the virus has neccesitated. Some jobs, and indeed whole industries, were at risk of total collapse without a credible plan in place. The Government’s unprecedented interventions to keep businesses running and protect jobs has been impressive, as Bright Blue has stated, even contributing to making the Chancellor an unlikely sex symbol after less than a couple of months on the job. 

The Government has made significant changes to Universal Credit too, upon which so many more people suddenly rely, though there is also room to go further as a recent Centre Write blog highlighted. The Government can be credited for leaving ideology to one side and doing what has been necessary to protect livelihoods. This economic crisis is like no other in history, and while former Leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn has desperately tried to claim that the pandemic is a vindication of his worldview, the truth is very different. 

The pandemic has demonstrated the importance of supporting the wealth creators of the private sector, the productive part of the economy, without which there would not be the resources to pay for the NHS that is on the frontline in the battle against the pandemic. A resurgent private sector will be needed to bounce back from the disease and pay off the support people have received. The money the Government has mustered to support people isn’t free and will need to be paid back, which is why timing the lockdown carefully has been so crucial. 

It simply isn’t feasible to remain in lockdown for months on end, as the bill for doing so would be ruinous for all of us. What this reminds us of is the overwhelming role that the private sector plays in supporting both the livelihoods of individuals, but also the state and its services. Yes, the state is rightly stepping in to plug the gaps during the peak of the disease, but only because the private sector is the backbone of our prosperity, and that is something comrade Corbyn has never understood. 

While it would be naive to think that this crisis will not impact future policy decisions, it would be a mistake for this crisis to be interpreted as cause for greater state control of the economy or as some blueprint for a socialist future for the United Kingdom. We ought to be wary of those who have used the pandemic as an opportunity to push for radical ideas such as a universal basic income. There is still no magic money tree, despite what some might have you believe. 

It is true that when the Government must turn its attention to balancing the books again in the wake of the astronomical new spending, there is a chance to do things differently. Those on the centre-right must ensure that any zeal for reform is used to build a more modern, dynamic, and meritocratic economy with sound market principles at its heart. This is something that will be guiding Bright Blue in the months ahead.

Joseph is Research and Communications Assistant at Bright Blue. [Image: Number 10]

Joseph Silke: Are we heading for negative interest rates?

By Centre Write, Economy & Finance, Joseph Silke

In response to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the Bank of England has cut base rates of interest to an all-time low of just 0.1%. This is down further from its initial emergency cut from 0.75% to 0.25%, made only one week prior. Officials are stretching the limits of conventional monetary policy to avoid another major economic downturn. With base rates now at almost zero, could the Bank be about to make a more controversial step and introduce negative base interest rates for the first time in history?  

Negative interest rates work in the opposite way to traditional interest rates, meaning that those who deposit into accounts must pay money to the bank to store their cash, rather than receiving money themselves. In effect, borrowers get paid to borrow. This ‘use it or lose it’ approach for lenders is used to discourage saving and encourage spending, to try stimulate the economy. When central banks do it, it is designed to incentivise commercial banks to lend more freely. This upside down way of banking has been flirted with in some radical circles, but this has caused unease among many.

Negative interest rates worry some policymakers because they fear significant distortions in the market. The Bank of International Settlements has warned of “eroding incentives for the private sector to maintain adequate buffers against financial stress”. Moreover, negative rates disincentive sensible saving practices by effectively penalising savers and could have unforeseen consequences for the operations of pension funds, risking leaving swathes of the population out of pocket.  

There is also the simple uncertainty of uncharted waters. Modern economies are so complex that analysing risk outside of the usual frameworks becomes a major challenge. When the normal rules break down, the models which economists have relied on to assess trends and outcomes begin to lose their potency. Why, then, have negative interest rates continued to grab headlines?

The context in which some central banks have been tempted to use negative rates is one in which the usual monetary levers have been exhausted. In the wake of the global financial crash, central banks slashed rates. Indeed, figures from last year showed that central banks have cut rates more than 800 times since the start of the Great Recession. This cutting to lower and lower rates has meant that many central banks haven’t been left with much traditional room for maneuver. As global growth has remained sluggish, some believe that the only recourse left is to go negative.  

In February 2015, Sweden’s central bank was the first in the world to implement a negative main repurchase rate, launching a historic experiment in monetary policy. The Riksbank, which is the world’s oldest central bank, lowered its rates from 0.25% to -0.10%. The move was controversial, but was coupled with a mass purchase of Swedish government bonds as part of a desperate effort to pump money into the Swedish economy and avert deflation.

Five years later, the experiment has concluded. It is too early to properly assess the ramifications of the experiment, though there are fears that the consequences for the behaviour of economic actors could be perverse and damaging in the long term. Although the Swedish economy is relatively small, the experiment has attracted the fascination of policymakers. For now, the Riksbank has returned its main repo rate to zero, so not back into genuine ‘positive’ territory yet. 

While he was still Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney said only last year that he opposes negative interest rates, claiming that they are “not an option” for the UK. He instead emphasised a commitment to the traditional approach of keeping rates as low to zero as possible, but without drifting into negative rates. Last month, just as the coronavirus was only beginning to emerge as a potential global challenge, he nevertheless confessed that we are “close to those limits” of what conventional policy can achieve. 

The new Governor, Andrew Bailey, is experiencing a baptism of fire with collapsing markets and very few weapons left in the traditional arsenal. Thrust into the top job during this most unprecedented of crises, he must carefully nurse the economy back to vitality. He has been described as a “safe pair of hands” rather than a radical. Bailey has insisted that no policy has been ruled out, but is said to be resistant to negative rates. As this crisis deepens, and perhaps becomes more protracted, however, it is possible that the Bank will reassess the limits of its radicalism.

Joseph Silke is Research and Communications Assistant at Bright Blue.

Should government intervene to save failing businesses?

By Anvar Sarygulov, Frank Serpe, Home, Joseph Silke, Patrick Hall, Phoebe Arslanagic-Wakefield, Podcast, Ryan Shorthouse, Sam Robinson

This edition of our Heads Apart? podcast asks whether government should intervene to save failing businesses. We are joined by Giles Wilkes, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Government, and Madeline Grant, Assistant Comment Editor at The Telegraph.

Our Deep Dive feature sees Bright Blue researcher Sam Robinson interview Paul Johnson, Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, on what to expect ahead of Rishi Sunak’s first budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Will this year’s budget see the abandonment of previously adhered to fiscal rules? Will the spread of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, undermine the new Chancellor’s plans to begin ‘levelling up’ the country?

Members of the Bright Blue team also give their thoughts on the ongoing Democratic primary to decide who will be nominated to face Donald Trump at the end of the year.

Music credit: Lights by Sappheiros

Presented by: Ryan Shorthouse, Sam Robinson and Joseph Silke | Produced by: Joseph Silke, Phoebe Arslanagic-Wakefield and Sam Robinson

Joseph Silke: The last thing London needs is rent controls

By Centre Write, Housing & Homelessness, Joseph Silke

There aren’t many things that economists across the political spectrum agree on, but the vast majority of respected economists from all sides concur: rent controls are a terrible idea. Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a man of the left, perhaps put it best when he famously asserted that “next to bombing, rent control seems in many cases to be the most efficient technique so far known for destroying cities.” Yet despite this consensus, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has declared that his reelection campaign this year will be fought on his proposal to introduce such measures to the city. Such an ill-conceived proposal from the incumbent leader of our global capital is deeply worrying. It is undeniable that London is in the midst of a serious housing crisis, but rent controls are the last thing that Londoners need.

The impulse some people have to promote rent controls is understandable at first. The housing crisis means that rents, especially rents in London, are high. Londoners can, on average, spend more than half their income on rents according to some measures and more than 60% according to others. This is all the more significant because more of us are renting than in recent times. Since 2008, there have been more new private rent lettings per year than new sales. The high cost of living means that saving to put down a deposit has become far more challenging than in the past, not least because the housing crisis also means that house-buying has also become a lot more expensive. Capping these rents, advocates claim, is the obvious answer to keep the costs for tenants low and reduce the cost of living. 

Oh, were it so simple. Far from improving the lot of renters, rent controls lead to worse living conditions and would exacerbate the current housing crisis. This is because rent controls act like any other form of price controls, distorting the market in such a way that ultimately harms consumers. Landlords who want to receive income at the market rate are limited to selling to new freeholders, reducing the number of properties available for the rental market. Moreover, the renters who do manage to land a rent controlled pad have little incentive to move property even if their circumstances change. They can continue to cash in on an artificially cheap cost of living, again reducing the number of properties on the market. These few tenants are the lucky winners who do benefit from rent controls, but everybody else suffers. 

This inefficient allocation of resources isn’t the only problem. Rent controls harm investment in existing housing stock. Landlords, who already have a strained margin of return, are less likely to invest in repairs and renovations to their holdings, leading to the proliferation of increasingly dilapidated living conditions. Moreover, rent controls precipitate a decrease in the construction of new housing as the return is artificially capped by state intervention. Such measures result in the degradation of the housing stock and most hurt the people they are most supposed to protect. Pursuing rent controls would be a purely populist move with disastrous consequences for London. 

Pointing out the folly of rent controls doesn’t preclude recognising that the rental market is tough for many renters. There are, moreover, policies that are much more likely to address the housing crisis and decrease the cost of living by reducing rent costs. Easing the vice-like grip of green belt restrictions around London would be an ideal start. As Bright Blue’s recent conservation report pointed out, much of the land is not of substantive environmental value and eco-friendly residential developments could provide new havens for plants and animals as well as new homes for humans. Recent research suggests that building on just 3.9% of the green belt around London could free up enough land for one million new homes. Prioritising construction of new homes near existing public transport infrastructure, primarily commuter belt railway stations, can also safeguard the local environment.

There is significant work to be done reforming our antiquated property tax system. Stamp duty is an indefensible transaction cost, and there are some compelling arguments for moving towards a land value tax for commercial as well as residential property. It is disappointing to see some businesses pour cold water on the prospect. Measures could also be introduced to relax the current regulations on changes to existing properties and combat the abuses of rogue landlords. It is encouraging to see the Government take steps in the right direction on both these matters, relaxing restrictions on extending homes vertically without planning permission and giving tenants greater security by reforming rules on no-fault evictions. Regulators must always temper the rights of landlords with those of tenants, but the increase in the number of renters does necessitate ensuring renters are protected from the excesses of some irresponsible practices by a minority of landlords.

Sadiq Khan should ditch the populist rhetoric on rent controls and focus on the credible ideas to make the lives of renters in London better. If he is determined to make the upcoming mayoral election a referendum on the proposal, Londoners ought to reject it and reject him.

Joseph Silke is Research and Communications Assistant at Bright Blue.

Joseph Silke: More competition will be good news for taxi passengers

By Centre Write, Joseph Silke, Transport

The days when the iconic Hackney carriage ruled the road are well and truly over. Last week, the Indian ride-hailing firm Ola launched in the capital, expanding its operations from other major cities including Birmingham and Bristol. The app company is the latest insurgent in an increasingly digital and competitive taxi cab market and the growing battle for our journeys is great news for passengers. 

In recent years, Uber has revolutionised the taxi service. In contrast to black cabs, users love the affordable on-demand rides that can be tracked from the moment of booking to the end of the journey. This tracking, especially late at night, has been a focal point of praise. Parents are able to trace their children’s journeys so they know they have arrived at their destinations. 

The rating system allows drivers and passengers alike to incorporate accountability into the user experience on both ends. Fares and routes are recorded as well as the details of drivers and passengers should an issue arise. It is down to all this that 3.5 million users in London alone ‘Uber it’ and their cars have become an everyday feature of urban life. 

There are around 45,000 Uber drivers in the capital, more than double the 21,000 black cab drivers. Overall, there are around 126,000 taxis in the city, so Uber already makes up over a third of the supply. This is reflective of how great an impact its made. The app hasn’t just been loved by passengers. It provides flexible working hours, with drivers in control of when and for how long they work. Many of them use Uber to supplement their primary incomes. 

For these reasons and others, Uber has become incredibly popular. Like many of the behemoths that have emerged in recent years, however, it has also courted considerable controversy. Multiple local authorities in the UK have flirted with sanctions on the service including in London, York, and Sheffield. This scepticism has not been unique to the UK and Uber has been subject to outright bans in Frankfurt, Barcelona, and Budapest. 

It was under the mayoralty of the now Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, that Uber was first granted permission to operate in London. The low barrier to entry that services like Uber provide have always vexed trade unions. The notion that one could simply skip the lengthy training process of The Knowledge and use an app to navigate the roads using a straightforward GPS has substantially undermined the position of black cabbies. 

“They don’t deserve to be on the road, they haven’t learned The Knowledge,” one black cab driver told The Telegraph back in November last year. “They’ve got one eye on the phone, one eye on their sat nav, the other eye – if they’ve got another one – on the road.” One can appreciate the frustration, but if drivers who haven’t completed months of training can still deliver people to their destinations, attempts to restrict services based on standards that only aid one provider and do nothing for the consumer are wrong. 

Market disruptors regularly come under fire from incumbents that fiercely lobby regulators to maintain their position. London’s current mayor Sadiq Khan has been accused of using his powers in this area to stifle the innovation that has made the lives of Londoners better. Ideological opposition to the emergence of the ‘gig economy’ and pressure from unions, it is argued, have made delivering the service that consumers crave more difficult.

The issue of safety has been a recurring theme, and there have been some genuine concerns around some of Uber’s licensing practices. Transport for London (TfL) has claimed that “weak systems and processes” have allowed drivers without insurance to operate as well as drivers without authorisation to make new accounts and pick up unsuspecting passengers. Uber itself has admitted to shortcomings in the past and has claimed to have made significant strides to improve passenger security. 

While we ought to celebrate the successes of products and services that many people use and enjoy, we cannot be blind to their shortcomings. It should ultimately be up to passengers, however, who they choose to ride with. This is why the expansion of the market, with new competitors, is cause for optimism. If one doesn’t like black cabs, or Uber, or any other alternative, one does not have to use them. No company or brand should be sacred. 

Consumers deserve freedom of choice and, fortunately, the success of Uber has led the way for new entrants into the market to build on their model. Other popular apps include Lyft, Hailo (now FREE NOW), and now Ola. As much as black cabs can lose out to a more competitive Uber, these new services will keep the original insurgent on its toes. 

The role of City Hall and other authorities must be to encourage insurgents and not favour incumbents, whether they are black cabs or the new dominant tech companies. Whoever becomes Mayor of London this year must ensure that Londoners are safe, but they mustn’t take a retrograde approach to regulation which favours inefficiency over innovation. The emergence of Ola and other new competitors will thrive if they work for passengers, and regulators should facilitate giving them that chance.

Joseph Silke is Research and Communications Assistant at Bright Blue.