Uber was a market force for the unter-dog

Uber should have called itself Unter. The name the company chose asserts power (über is the German for “over”), but the true value of the service is that it helps the unter-dog. Possibly Transport for London and Sadiq Khan thought there was an easy propaganda hit to be had at the “gig economy” by removing Uber’s licence. If so, they are quickly learning otherwise.

Personally, I prefer black cabs with “the knowledge” to inexperienced drivers with doubtful English and a sat-nav, but then I am moderately old and moderately well-off. For people in their teens and twenties (and many others), however, the pre-uber situation was quite grim. Either they paid what they couldn’t afford and therefore went out little, or they took freelance minicabs (often uninsured, smelling of tobacco and fast food), or the night bus.

The Mayor of London boasts that he is the son of a bus driver, so he may have romantic feelings, but most people, offered the choice between a fairly low-price journey to their door and a late-night wait followed by a trudge home from the bus-stop, will know which they prefer. As well as being more convenient, the former is clearly safer, especially for women. Any parent inclined to fret about Uber’s supposed risks should recognise that a system in which the driver’s name is known and the journey can be tracked is more reassuring than the old lowtech alternatives. As with ebay, it is difficult, though not impossible, for the customer to be cheated or abused.

The Uber saga is a good example of how capitalism works. Technological change and human ingenuity disrupt existing providers, who then try to find political or regulatory cronies to protect their position. Some old skills suffer – which is sad – and some corners get cut – which is bad – but the overall effect is to provide for the many a better service at a lower price.

It will be interesting to see what happens next. If Uber’s appeal case fails, those of the younger generation currently inclined to take a Corbynista view of the world may start to miss the fun they had when market forces were allowed to work.

Diane Abbott is an unusual person. I first met her when she was senior to me as a student at Cambridge University in the late 1970s. Then she seemed comfortably middleclass, very jolly and quite glamorous.

Not long afterwards, she got involved in Left-wing London politics. When I next saw her, Labour candidate for Hackney in 1987, she had a new accent and the resentful scowl required for roles of that sort in those days.

Now she is the shadow home secretary. On Friday night I sat next to her for supper at Lancing College, the excellent public school. We were both on the panel of the BBC’S Any Questions?. These days, the Rt Hon. Diane is poised and confident, and I detected, behind the reserve natural in important persons when talking to media scum (me), the old sense of humour struggling to get out.

Once we were on air in Lancing’s wonderful chapel, however, I defy any normal person to work out what Ms Abbott really meant. She said it was important to respect the result of the Brexit referendum, but also, it seemed, to stay inside the single market and customs union, which – as Michel Barnier never tires of telling us – would be impossible if we left. She wants “a Labour Brexit”, not a Tory one, but left us none the wiser about what that might be.

Ms Abbott went on to her party’s conference, which will pretend to sort the matter out this week. Yesterday, Labour Party “moderates” wrote an open letter calling for Labour to commit to the single market and the customs union, “ruling out no options for how to achieve this”. This is code for staying in the EU.

Such a pledge would go against Labour’s settled policy on European matters for more than 30 years, which is to share the Tories’ policy while saying how awful they are. When the referendum finally came, they were sort of Remain, but not so as you’d notice.

This ambiguous position may not be creditable, but it makes political sense. Labour does not want to lose Remain or Leave voters, and it has plenty of both. To govern is to choose: yes, but they aren’t governing. Long may it stay that way. Not governing is something Mr Corbyn is uniquely experienced at.

Since Any Questions? was taking place at Lancing, a question came up about the charitable status of independent schools. Diane Abbott is against it, of course, but had no choice but to admit the well-known fact that she sent her own son to an independent school.

To forestall criticism for hypocrisy, however, she reminded us that her son’s school had been City of London. The City of London, she said, is a local authority, so the school is pretty much a council school.

That shut us up for the necessary air-time, but my brain kept telling me that Ms Abbott’s answer was not quite right, so I looked it up afterwards.

The City of London School, says its website, was indeed built by the City of London Corporation, but the City is not any old local authority. Unlike, so far as I know, any comprehensive or even grammar school within the state system, the school charges fees – £5,577 per term (plus £252 for lunch). It has charitable status. I think this should continue. Diane Abbott does not.

READ MORE at telegraph.co.uk/opinion