Steve Richards: Good policies should not fall victim to the bullying of selfish, short-sighted petitioners

The furore over road pricing casts a penetrating light over key issues that whirl darkly around British politics. The importance of the debate extends well beyond the short-sighted opposition of some noisily intimidating motorists who campaign perversely against measures that will improve the quality of their lives.

On the Downing Street website more than a million signatures have registered their opposition to road pricing in an online petition. I would not be surprised if before very long there are petitions on the same site opposing taxation in any form. Petitions are a blunt instrument. They allow those holding lazy views to have an easy hit. There is no scope for nuance. No militant motorist can be challenged as he or she eagerly signs up. In particular, no one who has signed can be asked the key question: What would you do about the nightmarish congestion on Britain's roads, a situation that will get much worse unless action is taken? Instead they sign up and bask in the glory of their easy protestation.

The Downing Street website has much to commend it. The contents are in marked contrast to the malevolent frenzy that has replaced the reporting of politics in parts of the media. The focus is on the substance of policy, and there is an attempt to engage with voters in ways that are constructive. The dialogue with voters is robust and informed, closer to the real world than the portrayal of politics in some other places.

Even so, these petitions are a step too far. The Government listens too much already to the ill thought through prejudices of vocal voters. As I have argued before the problem with this Government is not arrogance, but a failure to be arrogant enough. Indeed, Blair's genius at times has been to claim the mantle for radical boldness while proclaiming safely orthodox views.

The introduction of petitions is another obstacle to genuinely progressive policies. They join the stifling focus groups, threatening to reinforce timidity: "Help. What do we do? The focus groups do not like any action against motorists. Now we've got this bloody petition. Let's do very little, but present a tiny, inoffensive initiative as historic."

Petitions should not determine government policy. This is partly because voters are more ambiguous than a petition suggests. They want lower taxes, oppose road pricing and yet they rightly yearn for better public transport and less congested roads. The improvements have to be paid for in some form or other. There is a wider ambiguity as research for the latest government policy review has revealed. In theory voters want a smaller state and yet hold the Government responsible when anything goes wrong, and that includes when they are stuck in a jam or waiting for a train to arrive.

There is nothing new in this. Progressive government requires strong leadership because quite often it involves taking measures that are unpopular in the short term. The upside is that genuinely progressive policies acquire popularity once they are in place. The congestion charge in London is an obvious example. Ken Livingstone took the risk against the weak populist opposition of the Tories and the silent caution of the Government. He has been vindicated subsequently, including being re-elected against a Conservative candidate who pledged to abolish the charge. Sometimes boldness is necessary even if the voters are grateful only retrospectively.

When the Government has dared to take risks it has also been vindicated. Indeed the level of vindication can be measured by the Conservatives' U-turns. The Tories now support policies such as the minimum wage, a London-wide elected body and the higher investment in schools and hospitals, all of which they meekly opposed. Where the Government was weak and cowardly, such as adopting a conservative foreign policy position over supporting the US in the war against Iraq, it is condemned subsequently. It is much better, surely, to be praised retrospectively for courage.

Transport is a crisis issue. To their credit ministers have done more than the previous Conservative administration, increasing budgets and halting the decline of the railways into what had become a decrepit Third World service. But that has been nowhere near enough. Roads are congested. Trains are over-priced and unreliable. Parts of the London Underground are a disaster area and at weekends do not appear to function at all. In some areas of the country the privatised buses are nowhere to be seen.

Road pricing points the way to a solution on two fronts. First, it recognises that road space must be rationed. Some on the left argue that road pricing would penalise the poorest, but then offer no alternative solution. There are too many cars on a small and congested island. Road pricing would free up some space. The policy should not be seen as a sacrifice, a mistake made too often when new charges are introduced. On the contrary, for selfish reasons I want fewer cars on the roads so I can get to places more quickly. If I do not want to pay I will cycle or take public transport. This is an argument that can be won without calling on people to act on grounds of altruism, always a doomed mission.

Secondly, the revenues from road pricing should be earmarked exclusively for improvements to public transport and cycle lanes. The cash should not disappear in a vacuum. Again, Livingstone points the way by spending cash from the congestion charge on buses in London. The capital is the only part of the country where bus usage is up. For once people can make the connection between what they pay and how the cash is spent. As the former home secretary, Charles Clarke, argued last week in a thoughtful speech on the wider issues of tax and spend, there must be more targeted taxation and co-payments in the future. Voters must see more directly a link between their spending and outcomes. Earmarked taxes and co-payments offer two ways forward. Road pricing is one example where the system would work.

The civil liberty arguments are a red herring. Some worry that the Government will know where everyone is driving. So what? Unless we are driving to rob a bank I doubt if some imaginary secret police force will be very interested. The Government is having problems sorting out tax credits and tracing foreign prisoners. Everyone is far too busy to make use of film footage of motorists heading for Waitrose or a dodgy motel to conduct some sordid affair. Presumably, there will be no road pricing cameras in the motel to check up on any further mileage.

The petition against road pricing will be scaring everyone from Blair downwards. Yet this Government prevails when it is genuinely bold and stumbles when it pretends to be courageous. It deserves credit for contemplating radical measures. Now it must implement them.

s.richards@independent.co.uk

Interesting? Click here to explore further