STaN WEEK, Part Three... An Open Debate for the whole Trade?

An 'open' debate? Why not? They are pretty rare in this trade these days. Even the big organisations in our trade do not hold open meetings - in fact with only one exception they don't hold any meetings at all.

But first of all we have to decide what we should discuss at such an 'open' meeting. It's no good hundreds of drivers all turning up to an 'open' meeting with no planned strategy as to where we should go once the meeting has been held.

If it is just to shout names and abuse at the seemingly inept UTG then we have better things to do with our time.

It's action that is required - not rhetoric. We surely don't want it to turn out like a Unite meeting where the members just waste their meeting-time listening to one of the officials slagging off the government instead of tackling the serious problems the taxi trade faces.

Whilst at the same time denying a member the opportunity to raise pressing trade matters where the STaN Report is affecting our rights and seems contrary to the Hackney Carriage Acts. One would expect any trade representative group worth its salt to vigorously take this up
or explain why they are not.

An 'open' meeting is a very serious matter but we don't need it to just to vent our anger at little or no action by our trade groups - a public slanging match with no real objectives will not take us forward.

If we see certain parts of the STaN Report as being harmful to our interests then that is what the meeting should be called for and a plan of action being set out if the UTG just want to sit on their hands and ignore their members' wishes.

That's not leadership - it's a form of tyranny based on arrogance with NO consultation and NO explanations. Perhaps it could be likened to the American War of Independance - "No taxation without representation."

And in our case - where is the representation?

Is this where our so-called democratic organisations have brought us, where just a handful of the so-called leaders make BIG decisions on our behalf with TfL but do NOT have any mandate whatsoever from their respective memberships.

It's a very sad day when we can no longer trust those that were elected to represent the trade but seemingly work off their own secret agenda in some sort of collusion with TfL and remain silent.

We desperately need change but would an 'open' meeting help us in this regard unless it can be the kick-starter for change?

We don't seem to be going far at the moment in facing up to or challenging the things that are really harmful to our future.

Instead of wasting our time trying to influence the debate about what comes out of our exhaust pipes where we are of no significance in this global problem, we should be focussing on the REAL issues that affects us in the way we are allowed to work on the streets and the threat from our main competitors who are gradually (with TfL assistance) gradually encroaching into our territory.

If the trade wants better representation then it needs better leadership or organisations that can achieve our aspirations in transparent dealings with the licensing authorities.

John Mason told us he wants to have meaningful and transparent dialogue with the trade but there doesn't seem to be too much of that going on as it looks like we don't even get transparency from our own trade reps who appear to be afraid of their own memberships.

If we want change we have to DO something about it instead of just sounding off to all and sundry.

Because of the way we conduct our affairs do TfL just see us as a load of 'whingers' with NO real direction or purpose and 'easy meat' to deal with?

It seems, with the help of our trade organisations, that TfL have got us just where they want us.

It is up to us if we want to change that.