 So big news earlier on today Uber's applications who knew their license with the London Transport Authority was rejected. Their present license expires in the 30th of September. They have a couple of weeks to appeal. Why did this happen? They were viewed as not really behaving in a way that was adequate for such a large company. They hadn't exhibited sufficient corporate responsibility, hadn't taken seriously a case of sexual assault, hadn't vetted their workers properly and there was a minor element albeit inarguable element within their ranks of criminal behaviour in a range of areas which wasn't taken seriously by the company. They hadn't behaved appropriately. So they've not had their license renewed. If they don't get it renewed, if the appeal doesn't work, they won't be able to do business in London very soon. Now clearly Uber weren't happy about this. Their response was to say that 3.5 million users in London will be angry. The 40,000 workers who work for them who have invested significant time and often money into driving for Uber, they're going to be angry too, which is correct. And the left seems to have taken one or two responses. On the one hand, people have said fantastic. This is a blow to the gig economy. Hyper exploited workers. This isn't the way we should do things. They should be unionised. They should be organised properly like we have for instance with underground workers. The other argument is this is 40,000 people who potentially lost their livelihood. Again, precarious, low pay. And what's more, some people do need to use Uber. They can't afford black cabs and it could be women or people who could be subject to abuse or violence at particular times and they want to have that mode of transport and it's affordable. And that's a very strong compelling argument. It's also correct. Nobody is wrong here. The people that say this is good are right and the people that say these 40,000 people need jobs are also right. Fundamentally, the only real solution in the long term structurally, politically, is to nationalise Uber. That's right. TFL needs to have its own version of the app owned by the people and for the people. You see, Uber's claim about this being bad for workers is a load of garbage to start with. Yes, 40,000 people are going to see their jobs potentially eliminated. But Uber's end game is not to give people work. Uber have 400 people working in a Pittsburgh research centre, working almost exclusively around issues of automation. Uber want to establish a monopoly when it comes to the taxi industry globally. They want to establish that monopoly. They want to automate the industry. So they'll have a lower cost. There'll be the default choice for consumers around the world. And then they will automate most of, if not all of their fleet. And that's quite clearly in their corporate plans. Their previous CEO, Trevor Kalanick, had talked about it. This is all on record. They want to establish that monopoly and then take it from there. And this is how platform capitalism works. You sit with Facebook, you can only have one Facebook. Otherwise, what's the point? You can only have one Google. Otherwise, what's the point? Same with Uber. Uber wants to be the default monopoly private transporter of every major city and town in the world. And finally it was going to be automated. So the stuff about job creation is nonsense. Fundamentally, Uber is a machine, a bit like Amazon, to extract wealth from places and they don't even create any work in return in the long term. Because once we get automated vehicles, that is Uber's plan. It's about extracting value and giving it to Uber shareholders. This is a machine to capture value, not create it and give it to a very, very select few. So what should be the response? Well, I think in the short term, TFL should create their own app. How difficult can it be? We already have the workers. We already have the capital, i.e. the cars. It's clear that TFL at a very short space of time could probably create a TFL controlled Uber with unionized workers, with pay, which was living wage and good, strong employee rights, pensions, sick pay holidays. That's what should happen in the short to medium term. We should have a people's Uber. In the long term, as I've said, we are moving increasingly to very high levels of automation and logistics. Not just with taxis and autonomous vehicles, but also with drones, with trucks, with anything that moves. The warehousing robots, it will all be automated. One of the real leading edges of what's going to happen in automation in the next two decades. So as we move to that, what we're going to have is essentially a 24 hour logistical internet. We will have driverless autonomous vehicles moving goods and people everywhere constantly. Now in that context, that's a bigger argument even for public ownership. Because as the amount of human labor is diminished, that needs to be subordinated to human need, not to private profit. So we need a people's Uber. And as we see automation over time, we need fewer and fewer people working in that sector. But that shouldn't mean fewer jobs. It shouldn't mean fewer hours and the same, if not more, pay. And there's even an argument that says, well, look, you won't need a TFO controlled fleet of autonomous vehicles in 20 or 30 years time. And by the way, all the cars will be running electricity by then. It will be coming like I've said so many times before from solar by the early 2020s. If the trends at present are correct on energy storage with lithium ion batteries, if the trends are correct with what we're going to see from wind and solar by the middle of the next decade, electric cars will replace petrol cars within 10 years as the cheaper option. And as those batteries become ever more efficient, as I've said before, we see permanently deflationary tendencies in regards to energy where it moves to zero marginal cost. We see permanently deflationary tendencies in terms of how these cars are created, increasingly automated labour, modular labour, 3D printing of prototypes and so on. That should mean effectively zero marginal cost transport. So the vision 30, 40 years from now will be effectively, you know, free at the point of use transport infrastructures. In fact, I think you'd be far sooner than that. And what's more, the average car doesn't actually move 95% of the time, which means you have a huge surplus of capacity there, which is unused. Perhaps those cars would also be able to plug into an automated logistical internet. Regardless, we can have post scarcity and transport. Anybody can get anywhere, whenever they want, for free. But we don't need private enterprise to do that. We need fully automated luxury communism.