The road-user pricing to serfdom

Gridlock is coming, is both a literal and a figurative sense, and only Douglas Alexander can save us. If that doesn't send a shiver down the spine (or perhaps send you off into peels of laughter), the alternative should cause you to break into a cold sweat.

The petition to “Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy” has now received over 1.4m signatures. It says something of the pace and popularity of this petition that the editorial in today’s Times referred to just 1.3m signatories. Like the proverbial snowball, this is gathering ever more size and momentum as it cascades downhill.

I have explained before that the thinking behind this petition is confused and wrong. At the time I also warned, in passing, that no government could ignore a petition that garnered more than 30m signatures: the majority would have spoken, and to deny it its head would be all but impossible. The question, however, is whether a government can even ignore one with 3m signatures, or (the imminent test) half that. The pressure is clearly great: how often have opponents of the war in Iraq – Liberal Democrats among them – argued that the government should have changed its policy when a million people marched through London on 15 February 2003. But where would such a policy lead us?

If just 3.5 per cent of the voting public – just 2.5 per cent of the population – can divert a democratically elected government from its course, is this a sign of direct democracy in action, or is the government caving into a well motivated and vocal minority. It strikes me as no surprise that millions of people object to this, or indeed any other, government scheme – especially one that involves taxation. Every change has winners and losers, and both winners and losers will be numbered in millions. The question should not be whether the losers bleat most loudly, but whether the overall social benefit is greater than the cost, and (for those of us of a liberal bent) whether the proposal represents an abuse of the minority by the majority. Where road-user pricing is concerned, it is clearly a case that the social benefit outweighs the cost without the minority being unduly coerced. The government (in the form Mr. Alexander) should continue to make the case for road-user pricing and face down the protest.

This move towards “Direct Democracy” is in fact a dangerous trend. There is a good reason why we practice an alternative, “Representative Democracy”. We cannot all be experts in every field; decision-making is a full time business, and few of us have read the parliamentary committee reports, research institute papers and academic studies that underlie much of the decision making of government. Government also needs to be strategic, whereas the will of the majority (an amorphous body, constantly in flux, the make-up of which is constantly changing as it coalesces around new ideas and opinions) is momentary and fickle, precisely because the majority has no permanence.

More sinisterly, it can be anti-democratic. As both public choice theory and the petition about road-user pricing tell us, it is easier for minorities to mobilise than for majorities. Because minorities are smaller, they are easier to pull together, while the benefits of successful lobbying are shared less widely, so for any individual the spread between cost and benefit is closer than for a majority, where the benefits are spread broadly and the costs of mobilising high. This is why single-issues of dubious popularity often capture the media’s attention and bend governments to their will.

But if Direct Democracy lends itself to minorities, it lends itself to populist demagoguery even more. Caesar dominated Rome through plebiscites, a practice that was aped my Mussolini. To this day the German constitution bans federal referenda because they were the tools of Nazism.

And here I can see the real nightmare emerging. If the government backs down in the face of opposition form just a tiny fraction of the polity, it will set a trend that will lead to more than just motoring gridlock. Almost all important government policy is controversial, and all controversial policy will be paralysed by petitions and polls. A situation akin to that in Switzerland, where votes for women were blocked until 1973, or the United States, where differently-constituted majorities simultaneously try to cut taxes and increase public spending, would be the least of our fears. A government unable to legislate has a certain appeal to the libertarians among us, but it would undoubtedly be only the beginning.

As important and popular social and economic reform was stymied, and the government was rendered increasingly unable to respond to real problems, a new popular opinion would rise: that a strong government, a strong leader, was needed to push through change; to break the gridlock. We have seen it before. Popular frustration leads to the election of a strongman who offers to over-rule petty objections and push through progress. At first it is welcome, and the benefits are tangible: Hitler built the autobahns and Mussolini made the trains run on time; no need for road-user pricing when you have slave labour and threaten to shoot the train drivers! The benefits of today are paid for tomorrow, as freedom is lost and democracy forgotten. It is the road to serfdom.

The tyranny of the majority may condemn us all to gridlock

The Number 10 petitions website continues to fascinate me. I have resisted further temptation to sign up to stuff, even the delightful suggestion that we replace our stolid national anthem with Gold by Spandau Ballet.

Since my earlier criticism, which was picked up by Peter Riddell in The Times, I continue to be concerned that petitions imply apparent support for opinions with no opportunity to register dissent. However, this is not the end of the story. The petitions page could, in theory, garner in excess of 30m signatures for a particular policy. Would the Government then be compelled to legislate? If so, could this usher in the tyranny of the masses?

As a liberal I am concerned that democracy not excuse tyranny. The fact that a majority want something does not automatically justify it, especially if it is detrimental to others.

The petition that is concerning me at the moment is the most popular by far, out-polling even the repeal of the Hunting Act. An impressive 15,493 signatures have so far been appended to a petition calling upon the Government to Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy.

The thinking behind this petition is confused and wrong. The text of the full petition states that “Road pricing is already here with the high level of taxation on fuel. The more you travel - the more tax you pay.” While this does address the global environmental cost in the form of the carbon and other pollutants produced, it does not address the other main environmental concern – congestion. It is as expensive for me to drive a mile across the Highlands as it is across Piccadilly, yet roads in the Highlands are far more costly per mile facilitated as they are rarely used, while urban driving causes more lethal pollution (it is concentrated and hovers around pedestrians and residential properties) and slows other traffic, costing time and thus money.

Then, in a startling example of counter logic, the petitioners conclude “Please Mr Blair - forget about road pricing and concentrate on improving our roads to reduce congestion.” In fact, only road pricing can reduce congestion, because congestion is a natural by-product of free access; consumption unlimited by cost will expand until the consumer can gorge no more. Compare two other commodities: Britain has been awash with food since the Corn Laws were abolished (a bout of ill-conceived war-rationing aside) because we pay per loaf, but every year we are issued with hose-pipe bans because we pay a flat fee for unlimited water. As long as we can use the road without having to pay for it, we will use it without constraint.

An what about road improvements? Transport policy has always been a shambles as it has failed to compete for tax-money with more immediate concerns (health, education, war). To forestall one traditional liberal comment, Land Value Taxation would go part way to convincing those who benefit to fund infrastructure. But there is still a compelling case for the user to pay, at lest for the running costs if not for building in the first place (in fact, few infrastructure projects and no railways can be built if they rely on recouping their costs from users, as the stories of Railtrack and the Channel Tunnel both amply demonstrate).

Sadly, this argument has yet to be broadly accepted. Too many people in Britain have become used to free and unlimited road use. Thus, as with so many other “free” services, we are bedazzled by the joy of unlimited consumption to the point of being blind to the real costs that appear in the gap between our gross and net salaries.

Thus I fear Number 10’s petitions page. Government has a duty to lead, and with its decision to consider road user pricing, this Government has shown uncharacteristic leadership. Yet it has form for caving in to populism. I would love to sign a counter-petition to debunk the growing impression that people oppose road user pricing. But if I am in the minority I hope the Government still presses ahead. It is effective, it is efficient and it is fair.

Liberal Polemic in the news

On Wednesday I reported that Peter Riddell had published a piece in The Times about the Number 10 petitions site in which he noted that "As one blogger has pointed out, there is no chance to say whether you disagree, apart from creating a rival petition."

I suggested that this might be a reference to my article on the subject. I wrote to Mr. Riddell to ask him whether my suspicion was correct and on Friday he wrote back to confirm that it had indeed been my article to which he was referring.

Mr. Riddell remains very interested in how the Number 10 petitions site will develop so keep watching his articles in The Times for more information.

I'm famous, or derivative, I can't tell which

Peter Riddell's piece in today's Times presents a reasoned view of the new Number 10 petitions page.

Interestingly, he notes that "As one blogger has pointed out, there is no chance to say whether you disagree, apart from creating a rival petition." I wonder who this could be? Could it by any chance be me? I think it possibly could.

I think it equally possible that it could be any one of a number of others, though, so if you have also made this point and were feeling smug about yourself, perhaps you might post a comment below with a link to your blog-entry.

Otherwise, I'll go on thinking that I was that Blogger, with a smug grin that would make Tony Blair look dour.

I've succumbed to a piece of Blairite gimmickry

Forgive me a moment of cynicism, but I find myself thinking that the new No. 10 Downing Street petitions page is a vacuous attempt to make the Government look like it’s listening while in fact it is characterised by increasing deafness to public opinion.

That being said, I have brushed aside my cynicism and joined 2468 other people in signing the petition to scrap the proposed introduction of ID cards.

I have also written to the team running the project calling on them to add a facility to sign in opposition to a measure. My letter stated that:

I would like to propose one vital amendment to the e-petitions website. This is a facility to vote against the petition.

At present, petitions can build up support, but there is no means of measuring opposition. This makes it impossible to measure the true level of support for a proposal: does a million signatures imply large-scale support, apathy among 98 per cent of the population, or does it fly in the face of a large swathe of public opinion that is being overlooked.

If it were possible to have a facility to sign the petition in opposition to the proposal, a far fairer and more balanced measure of the will of the public could be taken.

Presumably, once Gordon takes over, this nonsense about consulting the people will be quietly parked, of course, but in the meantime, one does what one can.