Safe Speed Forums

This petition was just well covered on BBC1 lunchtime news. That should get a few more sigs.

Looks like it will top the 200,000 mark today............bring it on

Within the hour, I reckon...

Possibly 250,000 within the day.

Asked what happens to petitions on the Downing Street website, the PMOS replied that they became part of the policy process and part of the overall context in which decisions were taken. He added that they were a welcome addition to the ability of citizens to communicate directly with government. There was no axiomatic process in which a petition would be submitted and the government then agreed, that was not the way it worked.

Asked if the government accepted that it was losing the argument on road pricing, the PMOS replied that the government accepted that there was an argument that had to be made on road pricing. The consequences of doing nothing would lead to an increase in congestion of 25% in less than a decade. We were working with 10 local areas as they developed proposals for local road pricing schemes, that would be a pilot, but this was a process that would take some time. They had been asked to come back with proposals by next July, but there would then be a further process of consultation beyond that. It was an issue where we were working with local authorities to improve the flow of traffic, working to provide extra roads, and working on railways for example, but there was still a problem with congestion. Therefore that was why we were looking at his area.

Asked if the Prime Minister was dismayed at the scale of the petition, the PMOS replied that people did feel strongly about this issue, but feeling strongly was not a substitute for coming up with practical proposals. It was the duty of government to come up with practical proposals, and to explain to people why the proposals were necessary, and to work through how they might be carried out. This was precisely why we were talking to the 10 local areas about proposals for pilot schemes.

Asked if there was a secret threshold of signatures that would change government policy, the PMOS replied that he was not aware of one. It was not a surprise that people felt strongly on this. It did not mean that we would stop thinking of ways to deal with this issue. The 25% figure on congestion told everyone all that they needed to know about why we needed to do something about this.

Asked if the Prime Minister had seen this petition, and asked to clarify what was meant by the previous answer that petitions formed part of the overall context in which decisions were taken and whether that was just code for junked, the PMOS replied that the BBC had an amazing ability to call black white. He took this opportunity to invite the BBC to do a little sum of the amount of coverage it devoted to pushing the Prime Minister to talk about the manner of Saddam's execution, and then the number of seconds devoted to what the Prime Minister had actually said on the matter on the 10pm news last night. The BBC journalist replied that they were very concerned that they did not crowd out more important news items. The PMOS replied that he had succeeded admirably in at least one of his criteria, adding that it did not crowd out anything and did not even include the full quote. To answer his question, the PMOS replied that people's strong views on this matter were being taken fully into account. But this was not a substitute for actually having to do the work to come up with the solution. Therefore this was precisely why we were doing the hard work of working with the 10 local areas to come up with practical proposals. We would then look at how they might or might not be implemented and how they then fitted in with the overall mix of what we were doing on transport. Doing nothing was not an option. Doing nothing would mean that in ten years time congestion would be 25% worse.

Asked if there were any examples of Downing Street website petitions that had changed government policy, the PMOS replied that the website petition process had only recently begun.

Asked if any policy proposals had come out of the Big Conversation, the PMOS replied that this was a Labour Party event and referred the journalist to the Labour Party.

Asked if the Prime Minister had ever been updated on the numbers in this petition before the story had broken, adding that he welcomed the discussion of processology on this occasion, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister, as he had previously confessed, was more of an old fashioned paper man than he was a computer wizard. But he was kept updated on the e-petitions on a regular basis.

This could also be the start of a climb down? I believe the technology is not 10 years off, more like 3!

A Downing Street experiment in internet democracy has been hijacked by a hardline motoring organisation that is promoting a petition against nationwide congestion charging.

Blair defiant over road pricing row

Tony Blair insisted he would press ahead with pilot road pricing schemes yesterday despite more than 40,000 people signing a petition against them in less than 24 hours.

Mr Blair's official spokesman sounded a defiant note as the number of opponents to the proposals on the Downing Street website climbed. More than 250,000 names are now listed at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/.

He said: "The Government accepts that there is an argument that has to be made on road pricing. People do feel strongly about this issue. Feeling strongly, however, is not a substitute for coming up with practical proposals.

"Doing nothing is not an option. Doing nothing means that in 10 years, congestion will be 25 per cent worse."

Yesterday was the petition's busiest since it was posted on the Downing Street website on Nov 20 by Peter Roberts, from Telford. The spokesman said the Prime Minister — who was more an "old-fashioned paper man than he is a computer wizard" — was kept updated about the e-petitions.

But challenged as to how many No 10 website petitions had actually led to a change in policy, the spokesman said that the online petition process had only recently begun.

The Department for Transport sought to defuse the controversy by insisting that, despite the plans for pilot schemes, the Government remained open-minded about pressing ahead with road pricing for the whole country.

"No decision has been taken on whether to implement a national road pricing scheme," a spokesman said. "We are working with local authorities to investigate the potential of local schemes in tackling congestion.

"Until we see how pricing works in practice it would be premature to decide whether we should take forward a national scheme and what that scheme might look like."

This contrasted sharply with Mr Blair's tone when he appointed Douglas Alexander Transport Secretary last July.

In his letter to Mr Alexander, he wrote: "We need to advance the debate on the introduction of a national road-user charging scheme.

"The successful roll-out of local schemes funded from the Transport Innovation Fund will be critical. I would like you to identify the other key steps for the successful introduction of road-user charging within the next decade."

Mr Alexander was even more unequivocal a month later when he made his pitch for a legislative slot in this parliamentary session for a Bill to enable pilot pay-as-you-drive schemes to be started in several parts of the country.

"It would also help to pave the way for a national road-pricing scheme," he told Cabinet colleagues.

A senior Whitehall insider said there was greater enthusiasm for road pricing among politicians than officials at the Transport Department.

He described yesterday's statement as a tactical retreat while the argument raged, rather than preparing the ground for the plans to be scrapped completely.

John Spellar, a former transport minister and Labour MP for Warley, said he believed the difficulties of introducing a national road pricing scheme were becoming more apparent to ministers.

"I think they are looking at the complexities. It is relatively straightforward to put a cordon around a city, but when you start trying to do something like tracking millions of cars, it becomes a lot more difficult."

Chris Grayling, the Tory transport spokesman said: "The Government's transport strategy is all over the place.

A few months ago, a national road pricing scheme was a central part of their strategy.

Now it looks as if either they may be going into full reverse on their plans or they're trying to avoid telling people exactly what they are trying to do."

Ticking off Labour
In these days of political disengagement, the flaring of a genuine grass-roots movement lifts the spirits. Just after 4.30 yesterday afternoon, an e-petition on the Downing Street website objecting to plans to introduce road pricing ticked past the 200,000 mark. At this rate, the number of signatories will top 500,000 by the time the petition is taken down next month. Launched by a private motorist, it taps a deep well of resentment among people who feel disfranchised when confronted by this overbearing and out-of-touch administration. Here they have a mechanism through which they can make their voices heard.

The scale of the response should surprise no one, for motorists are angry. Earlier this week, a survey by the Centre for Economic and Business Research exposed the expense and inadequacy of public transport in this country compared with the rest of Europe. A decade of New Labour has left us paying twice as much for bus and train tickets as passengers on the Continent, yet service standards have declined. John Prescott, when he was (disastrously) in charge, bragged that, under Labour, public transport would be so good that no one would want to drive. The exact opposite has happened: people have been forced on to the roads.

Now, the Government wants to charge motorists for daring to use the road network for which they have already paid through car and fuel taxes. Of course ministers dress up road pricing in the guise of a "green measure" to which no "responsible" person could object. What a confidence trick. Road pricing is a tax on motorists, pure and simple — and an intrusive and meddlesome one at that. Judging by the fast-ticking box on the Number 10 website, ministers are going to face a struggle imposing it.

And so the attempts to rubbish the petition's success begin:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 90,00.html