Blair muzzles petitioners' reply
Anti-government message stifled despite promise of debate
Following his famous anti-road pricing petition, which reached almost two million signatures, Roberts said that the petitioners "have been gagged and cheated by the 10 Downing Street spin machine."
PM Tony Blair responded to the huge, record-breaking petition in which said several times that his proposed road charging scheme would not constitute a stealth tax. Blair said that "congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer".
He didn't however comment on whether simpler measures, such as freeing up more motorway space by improved road behaviour policing, would be implemented before the road charging scheme, which has also raised fears of a Big Brother surveillance society.
Petitioners said they wanted to respond to Blair's email, which was sent to everyone who signed up. They said they regarded it as only reasonable to be allowed to email the entire list of petitioners, but 10 Downing Street refused.
The accusations include the cherry-picking of questions in a Webchat by roads minister Stephen Ladyman, and 10 Downing Street have also used various tricks to deny us the chance to debate.
Meanwhile, road safety campaign Safe Speed weighed in with accusations of "bully-boy tactics".
Founder Paul Smith said: "The Prime Minister's office at 10 Downing Street has resorted to extraordinary spin in an attempt to fragment and dissipate opposition to it's flawed road pricing policy.
"The following wording appears on the petition site: "We will use your email address to confirm your signature and, unless you ask us not to, we will also send you a maximum of two responses to the issues raised in the petition and a maximum of two emails from the creator of the petition."
"Peter Roberts has not been allowed to send emails to the petition signers.
"Instead of allowing Peter Roberts to make a clear statement to petitioners on the Downing Street Web site, they have attempted to bury Peter's response amongst others.
"Peter's response on the web site is three clicks down from the petition Web page, while the 'official' response is just one click down. Web publishers will know that 'clicking down' results in attrition rates of at least 10:1, so this move makes it (at the very least) 100 times more likely that Mr Blair's views will be read instead of Mr Roberts' by casual visitors.
"When you do view the page with Peter's response among others, Peter's is the only 'distant' photograph. We don't believe that this is an accident.
"No significant Downing Street publicity has been given to Peter's new Traveltax Web site -- see link below. And Peter Robert's response was limited to 300 words, but Blair's email was 1,274 words."
Roberts said: "I have been frankly shocked by the spin and catalogue of nasty little tricks. We were promised a debate, but as far as I can tell 10 Downing Street have used all the resources they could muster to dominate and stifle the debate.
"Downing Street aren't even allowing me to email the petitioners to thank them for their support. In their spin-driven world even common courtesy takes a back seat."
"I honestly believed that the e-petitions service was there to engage with the public, but they are just using it as a propaganda machine.
"They don't want to listen to us - they want to shut us up."
Roberts' response email is below:
Our road network struggles today with the demands placed upon it. This manifests itself as congestion when people travel to and from work. Outside these times, congestion is generally minimal and mainly found around badly designed junctions, roadworks, or where the free flow of traffic is compromised.
Our government proposes introducing a road pricing system to increase the cost of congested roads coinciding with your travel to and from work. This journey is not optional for most people and increasing the cost to work will have a minimal impact on congestion.
There are many alternatives to a complex and expensive road pricing system. Initially, our government must address the design of our roads with the ambition of increasing capacity and flow rates. Today, most road engineering appears designed to reduce capacity and reduce traffic flow. We see dual carriageways reduced to single lanes, traffic lights on free flowing roundabouts and bus stops pushed out into the road preventing cars passing when the bus is stationary.
Before we even consider this massive, complex and hugely expensive road pricing system, we should offer a comprehensive network of free school buses, staggered school opening times, decent park & ride schemes, tax breaks for people working from home and encourage commercial vehicle movements outside peak journey times.
Road pricing is an intrusive and highly expensive way of modifying transport choices. Its cost needs to be recovered before any benefit from taxation and adding additional bureaucracy to an already complex scheme is wasteful and unnecessary.
A simple form of distance pricing is to incorporate road tax into the cost of fuel. This removes the possibility of evasion and increases tax on inefficient vehicles. It's an effective, inexpensive and acceptable way of using price to affect travel choices.
Road charging campaigner Peter Roberts is far from gruntled over 10 Downing Streets' refusal to allow right of reply -- even though the road charging petition site promised that facility.
Before any type of road pricing is introduced nationwide there has to be an effective means of public transport at a reasonable price. This I doubt will happen ever let alone in the near future.
This government will price a lot of poorer people out of their car (or into illegal cars) & in to eaqually expensive pubic transport where it exists. Why does it cost so much to use a bus or train when they're supposed to be subsidised.
Before any type of road pricing is introduced nationwide there has to be an effective means of public transport at a reasonable price. This I doubt will happen ever let alone in the near future.
You are pre-supposing that public transport is preferable to private transport. I can't see any reason to prefer public transport, it is not more economical, it is not better for the environment, it is not more convenient, it is not more reliable. The only reason I can see for encouraging people to use public transport is political: it restricts personal mobility and reduces everyone to the capabilities of the lowest common denominator.
Before any type of road pricing is introduced nationwide there has to be an effective means of public transport at a reasonable price. This I doubt will happen ever let alone in the near future.
You are pre-supposing that public transport is preferable to private transport. I can't see any reason to prefer public transport, it is not more economical, it is not better for the environment, it is not more convenient, it is not more reliable. The only reason I can see for encouraging people to use public transport is political: it restricts personal mobility and reduces everyone to the capabilities of the lowest common denominator.
Sorry, I have come across the wrong way. I agree with you whole heartedly. I just hate the fact all these greenies go on about getting out of cars & into public transport when the alternative to your own private transport is useless in almost every respect.
Before any type of road pricing is introduced nationwide there has to be an effective means of public transport at a reasonable price. This I doubt will happen ever let alone in the near future.
You are pre-supposing that public transport is preferable to private transport. I can't see any reason to prefer public transport, it is not more economical, it is not better for the environment, it is not more convenient, it is not more reliable. quote]
Plus, you forgot to mention, it doesn't wait until I am ready to go to work, or stop in the office car park
Isn't this what they're after? Lesser of two evils & all that - they make us think they're good chaps for not introducing road tolls, and instead we're grateful for getting higher taxes on fuel!
This seems to accurately address all the issues with zero implementation costs and no increased interference on individuals from the government 'big brother syndrome'. Surely this would also reduce the no. of un-taxed cars on our roads to zero since every car needs fuel to run!
I should point out though that the current tax on petrol is already considerable. Perhaps the government should look first at how it is investing this money to improve congestion and advances in alternative technologies?
Instead they force the hard working taxpaying members of our society to suffer additional costs which are targeted at those who have no choice but to drive to work. Surely nobody would by choice sit on the M25 for 4 hours every day if there were an alternative.
Ben
p.s. If the road pricing scheme aims to direct the main flow of traffic off our motorways (which are designed with no pedestrian access) and onto minor roads in residential and rural areas what affect is this going to have on road safety and the no. of casualties?!
p.p.s Driving on rural roads and in v.urban environments reduces fuel economy and increases emissions /pollution
Where did you get the impression they are "subsidised"? Pricing is set by the companies to maximise profit, but regulated by government. This means that the maximum price allowed is always pushed for, as would be expected for any operation under corporate governance. Subsidy would mean market price was subsequently reduced - tis not.
I think the 'best' model is in London, the only place that actually has integrated transport. When I lived there I was smugly using tubes and buses. Now I live in the country side. we have three buses a day, none going in the right direction. No option but to continuously get screwed by this government, just to go to work. I am not very happy about this.
Most MPs seem to only experience London and have vast expenses anyway. Easy to make an "environmental point" when it doesnt effect you. I have a radical idea - integrate it all and make all public transport free. Back of an envelope math, once you factor in the current subsidy as cost, remove all the ticket staff and equipment it sorta makes sense.
I shall get off my soap box.
They know that these people are the only ones who might now bother to vote for them and they want the brainless or workshy to vote for on the pretext that if you are a lazy tosser or have a hundred sprogs by different fathers you will get something out of the tax they take from the poor fools that go to work for a living or drive car legally.
Before any type of road pricing is introduced nationwide there has to be an effective means of public transport at a reasonable price. This I doubt will happen ever let alone in the near future.
You are pre-supposing that public transport is preferable to private transport. I can't see any reason to prefer public transport, it is not more economical, it is not better for the environment, it is not more convenient, it is not more reliable. quote]
Plus, you forgot to mention, it doesn't wait until I am ready to go to work, or stop in the office car park
Buses are crap. end of story. The bus I would get to work stops outside my house, leaves the stop evey 20 minutes, travels 5 miles through the city and five miles down an A road. Stopping half a mile from my work. Do I take it? Do I F"$£. It would not be possible to have a more direct bus route and yet I still beat it on a push bike (there is absolutely no competition against a car). It comes down to the fact that buses, by their very nature, have to stop every 30 seconds to let someone on or off, turning a twenty min journey into forty. This becomes even worse when coupled with the fact they generally wander all over the countryside ina bid to pick up as many people as possible.
All this before I even mention the cost of the bus (25% price increase in Edinburgh last year because "people will generally have a pound coin in their pockets and it saves messing around with change".) ; or the life or death experience of actually sitting on a bus. As jack dee once said: "You know how quite often you see a crazy person wandering around a city centre ranting and shouting, chances are they didn't drive there!"
But -this time they'll claim it's not rape - we asked for it
[/quote] This government, as the article says, likes a bit of spin!
This will go like their "offering choice in the NHS". Who has ever said they would like to choose their hospital? We just want all to be good. Road tax is already very high and if the money was all spent on transport then I am sure the problems would go away. More sneaky taxes (prefer sneaky to stealth as is less macho)diverted to plug NHS holes and fund MPs expenses.
They know that these people are the only ones who might now bother to vote for them and they want the brainless or workshy to vote for on the pretext that if you are a lazy tosser or have a hundred sprogs by different fathers you will get something out of the tax they take from the poor fools that go to work for a living or drive car legally.
I wouldn't say shocking, this is worse, it's sinister - Blair is acting like a dictator. He is power mad and is trying to leave himself a legecy.
I really can not believe B Liar and his New Labour Nazis manage to get away with it time and time again.
The only way to stop this madness is to make your vote count at the next opportunity, but then what are the alternatives - Cameron seems to have modelled himself on Tony Blair - promise everything and say whatever everyone wants to hear, just to get elected, then do what the hell you want.
It is very scary that he can get away with it - just like he will with the Cash for Honours scandal.
It amazes me that where someone commits fraud, theft or indeed any other law breaking or manipulation of the the law, they have to answer for it - except for the Labour Party when it is called SPIN. This is political BO((OX where people don't have the ba{{s to say what they mean. Cue the Oxford Dictionery.....spin - "when the labour Party chooses to break the in law"
Steve
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff