Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Blair sends 1.8m e-mails to try to sway opponents of road pricing

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
22 February 2007
TONY Blair insisted yesterday that pay-as-you-drive road pricing must be considered to tackle congestion, as he sent an e-mail response to the 1.8 million people who signed an online petition against the scheme.
The Prime Minister said it was too early to give details of any plans, but he admitted concerns over Big Brother-style surveillance had to be addressed.

His counterattack came as Tavish Scott, the transport minister, cancelled constituency busine
ss so he could respond to a Conservative debate on the issue at Holyrood today.

Scots Tories launched their own online petition against road pricing yesterday, with Annabel Goldie, their leader, describing it as "a regressive tax which would hit households and families on the lowest incomes hardest".

Mr Blair's e-mail said: "It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.

"There could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall."

However, he said the technology involved "would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected" to ensure the government did not receive information about vehicle movements.

He said no area of the country would be forced to take part in a pilot scheme, but confirmed that funds raised from them would be used for local transport improvements.

The Prime Minister said that because no decision had been made to move towards a national scheme, "stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided".

In 2005, a government-commissioned study said charges could range from 2p a mile to £1.34 a mile for the most congested roads - drivers currently paid an average 11.6p a mile in taxes.

Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "It is possible the right system, using the right technology, could deliver the necessary traffic reduction, without infringing on anyone's civil liberties."

But the Federation of Small Businesses said charging could price some firms off the road.

Andy Willox, its Scottish policy convener, said: "Small businesses are big losers in congestion charging schemes because they cannot pick and choose when and where to deliver to clients, or at what time to get their staff to and from a job."

Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said: "We are not surprised that motorists have protested because motorists do not really know what road pricing will involve and the government does not know what it will involve."

The Association of British Drivers said ministers should dump any road-pricing plans, or at least call a referendum.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

The Strategist,

22/02/2007 01:41:19

The problem with a Tory online petition is that it's a Tory online petition...

2

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 22/02/2007 02:28:25

but the question is .. which email system did he use, the official one, the semi official one, or the non-existent cash for honours, bribes & backhanders one ....

3

Guga,

Rockall 22/02/2007 04:07:11

Does Bliar actually think that anyone will believe a word he says? With his track record as a proven liar, why should they?

However, being a totalitarian control freak, he obviously has no intention of listening to the people. He thinks, in his total arrogance, that he knows better than the hoi polloi.

Remember folks, it's not a nanny state Bliar wants, it is, in fact, a totalitarian police state he is trying to implement.

4

J.K.,

22/02/2007 05:37:53

"The Prime Minister said it was too early to give details of any plans, but he admitted concerns over Big Brother-style surveillance had to be addressed."

What he means by this is "concerns over Big Brother-style surveillance had to be spun" in such a way that anyone resisting such measures would be seen as aiding and abetting the "terrorists".

5

SouthernSkye,

Currently Köln 22/02/2007 07:15:45

Makes me wonder if this is all being played-up in order that something the public see as "less-bad" will be able to be implemented without much opposition?!

6

Grumpy,

22/02/2007 07:19:16

If Tony was on a bike, he'd be back-pedalling at a rate like you've never seen before.

7

Jozef Goj,

Colo Heights NSW Australia 22/02/2007 07:26:35

On Monday the 21st Febuary, Prime Minister Blair challenged critics to come up with a better solution to the growing problem of traffic congestion.

I accept that challenge.

Furthermore we can achieve this without tolls.
He has been informed of this today by e-mail on his Downing Street website
We can change any cities traffic infrastructure to give Liquid Flow Traffic.

If the road infrastructure cannot achieve free and uninterrupted vehicle flows no technology will help!

The solution to traffic jams is not the size of the road but the ability of an intersection to work correctly.
Traffic lights just stop traffic, roundabouts are for light traffic and freeway intersections are fundamentally flawed. They have been like this for over 80 years as ,supposedly worlds best practice.
Problem is it just dosn't work.
If it worked why do we get jams and gridlock?
Because the present system is designed to slow you down.

At www.ubtsc.com.au we have models of intersections that work at 100 percent efficiency.

They allow all vehicles entering an intersection to exit that intersection left, right or ahead without stopping all day every day without fail.
Yes even during the worst peak period you can imagine.

We also have a number of other transportation solutions that are environmentally zero polluting.
None of this is worth anything if government at all levels dismisses it!
Think outside the square for solutions and look for the positives of what this means.
I did.
Imagine being able to cross town in peak hour traffic without stopping at a single intersection.

Jozef Goj, CEO, UBTSC Pty Ltd

8

Dod fae Orkney,

In the hoose 22/02/2007 07:29:04

He'll need to do better than the e-mail to get me to change my mind.

9

paulr,

22/02/2007 08:52:15

This is just another way of imposing an extra tax on drivers.

10

livilion,

livingston 22/02/2007 09:29:06

#7. Jozef Goj, Colo Heights NSW Australia
AT LAST!
I've been saying this for years but no-one who designs these roads seems to actually use them or it would be patently obvious.

I've driven 30,000+miles a year for 25 years, all over Scotland and it's towns, cities and countryside, between London and Glasgow as a regular commute and the center of London on a daily basis.

It is clear to me that in places like the M25, (the biggest car park in Europe?)widening the road initially reduces the length of traffic jams only by making them wider.

The problem arises when ever greater proportions of vehicles cut in, later and later, into the inside lanes in order to exit.

These inside lanes progressively get slower and eventually stop moving, causing the tail back.

You cannot easily get back off that Motorway once you are on it, once tail backs from more than one exit meet then there is 'gridlock'.

eg
Approaching roadworks, and coned off sections of roadway, if there are cars leaving it to the last minute to get into the correct lane, stopping traffic, I'll pull out and get in their way.

This almost always results in the flow of traffic speeding back up.

11

THEalan,

Dumfries 22/02/2007 09:32:42

Scots are being made to pay for the overpopulation of England, limit them to one child !

12

livilion,

livingston 22/02/2007 09:39:00

btw
Can we kill the myth that new roads produce traffic?
By that same logic, fire engines produce fires.

New roads only get busy by reducing traffic on other roads, and usually they are only built to remove overcrowding on older roads.

Population growth is fairly static in the UK at around the 60million mark. Scotland's for years has actually declined.

The proportion of homes with one or more cars is also fairly static at around 3/4.

I would suggest that the boom years of expansion in car use, that we witnessed from the 60's to the 80's, is surely fizzling out.

Let's face it, even the keenest petrolhead can only drive one car at a time.

'Congestion' is poorly laid out, or inadequate, road junctions.

I'm still waiting for Tony's email.

13

livilion,

livingston 22/02/2007 09:46:50

Interesting times we live in right enough.

When New Labour want to price poorer drivers off the roads to reduce congestion, and are opposed by the Tories whose traditional support, being more affluent, would be the main beneficiaries of these proposals.

Postmen will be biting dogs and mice will be stalking cats next.

14

George.,

22/02/2007 09:56:26

If this proposal was only to encourage people to use their cars less, then it would have made more sense to put all the duties on fuel. The more you drive the more you pay. It would also encourage people to drive cars with the best fuel economy. There would be no requirement for monitoring equipment to be placed in cars. The only problem with this, is that fossil fuels are a limited resource and will run out eventually. So they must shift the burden of taxation from fuel sooner rather than later. Solar power in ten to twenty years will have advanced to the point that it will be within everybody's grasp to have all their electricity needs met from solar power. Any additional power could be used to either charge batteries in your car or re-charge hydrogen cells to power your car. If you don't burn petrol where are they going to get their tax income from. This is why they must move to price by the mile as soon as possible. Remember that once a charge is created it is very easy to allow it to creep up over time without most people actually noticing it.

15

mv,

22/02/2007 10:00:28

Tony the public are fed up with an ever increasing tax burden with little return, it was the same when Edinburgh tried to impose a road tax here. All they offered was some transport improvments at a later date....but the vast majority of people saw it for what it was!

There are 2 issues with the road pricing policy:
1.Its a basic revenue collection policy which will force some of the poorest drivers off the roads, the rest will just pay more taxes and nothing changes. The motorist already contributes 50 billion to the government with little return on road/transport policy so no trust exists that this is any different.

2.The spy in the car box will allow every driver to be tracked 24 hours a day. Another civil liberty gone.

The goverment should be improving :

1-public transport, trains getting more expensive and crowded so adding hundreds of thousands more to these services and the system will grind to a halt.

2-fix the roads, too many schemes to restrict traffic flow exist (just travel around edinburgh!)

3-go back to school buses

4-force car manufacturers to reduce emissions

5-force older vehicles off the road (high emissions) including buses and taxis!

6-have a joined up transport network that works

7-restrict lorry use, stop lorry overtaking on roads.

8-get the police back on the roads to police the roads, revenue collection from cameras do not police the roads

9-more flexitime for workers and homeworking

10-produce and shop locally for food, too many tesco type out of town supermarkets forcing driving and food miles.

etc,etc.....but not introduce a basic tax system to collect revenue! (and spy on us)

16

AD,

dreich Livingston 22/02/2007 10:12:14

I signed the online petition.

I got an email from the PM.

I found it in my JUNK MAIL folder - ah, the wonders of modern technology - VERY clever!

17

Mallory,

22/02/2007 10:29:44

At least three major SPAM filtering operations marked and deleted his material, sparing many from further No 10 nuspeak.

Peter Cherbi's question is apposite - as are the data protection issues raised by this mailshot. No doubt some privacy pressure group will mount challenges.

18

Alexander,

edinburgh 22/02/2007 10:49:59

Firstly my mail server correctly categorized Tony's e-mail as "junk". However, I did read it and the message was that myself and 1.8m others were pretty stupid, ill informed and would be "converted".
There is still another petition against road tolls which claims to be endorsed by Scottish Tories. If it was supported by Genghis Khan it is still be worth signing if you are against more motoring taxes and "big brother" spying on your every move..
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/notolls/

19

ScotsLass58,

Red Kens Toon 22/02/2007 11:29:29

Being a "lucky?" recipient of Tony "do as I say not as I do" Blair's e-mail I can say that I am astoundedto find said individual is still looking for something to do after he vacates? 10 Downing street. Hey bubba I've found a job for you....... Stand up comedian seems a got vocation for you!

As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. From this excerpt of the acclaimed e-mail can I assume that the alledged "full and frank debate" will not be slightly fuller and franker than the recent "full and frank" debate held on nuclear power. Ooops shouldn't mention that one should I Greenpeace kicked the goverment's a*** on that one.:)

20

Unbeliever,

22/02/2007 11:54:38

1 Dick
What's wrong with Tory ideas?
Blair get most of his ideas from them.

21

petrol head,

Edinburgh 22/02/2007 11:58:32

#6: Good point.

I received Blair's email last night and when reading between the lines, it was full of reassurances that the scheme as originally proposed was a non-starter. Yet he still went on about how road pricing was a necessity.

I gave a full reply to all his points and also mentioned the possibility of enforcing speed limits with this tracking system and how it would be disasterous for all concerned if this happened. This is something that has purposely not been mentioned by labour but you can bet your bottom dollar that if this crazy scheme is ever implimented, it would be at max about 6 months before people started getting speeding tickets issued by it.

What a cash cow! being able to monitor the speed of all traffic at all times! One thing is for certain though, crash statistics would spiral out of control because everyone would be transfixed by their speedo and oblivious to everything else---but hey! they'd be making their money so what do they care?

I will be very surprised if anyone reads what I wrote though, let alone acts upon it or replies to me.

22

petrol head,

Edinburgh 22/02/2007 11:59:26

#20: He might do, but he has no idea how to impliment them properly.

23

petrol head,

Edinburgh 22/02/2007 12:08:48

13: George

I don't agree with everything you say but I do agree that fossil fuels are a finite resource---so why have we been fireing our power stations with gas and oil for the past 20 years?

To generate electricity we need nuclear power, hydro electric power, solar power, wind power and wave power.

Solar powered and electrically powered cars are a good idea too. As are fuel cells. I wonder if it would be possible to get 400bhp out of a fuel cell in the same way that the supercharged Jaguar 4.8 V8 gets 400bhp out of petrol? If it were, then I might be converted! I'd miss the exhaust note though.

24

petrol head,

Edinburgh 22/02/2007 12:10:46

Sorry... "4.2 V8"

Thought I was using my telephone keypad for a moment then!

25

Stewarty,

22/02/2007 12:36:54

The submission from Australia #7 is virtually worthless and reeks of sectional interest.

Interesting that the website has had only 599 hits (when I visited) which is indicative of the enthusiasm in Oz.

The grandiose burrowing junctions envisaged by the (probably small and insignificant) company are scarcely cost effective and would require much building demolition and human displacement, as would those which are not mini "Spaghetti Junctions".

26

George.,

22/02/2007 12:50:07

Please read the article at the following link.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/20...

If this is allowed to be developed and the costs of production are reduced to a level where anybody could afford to have solar power installed in their homes. The Government would have to change how they collect most of their tax. The reason why an electric car does not have the performance of a 4.2 v8 is because they don't want it too. Where there is a will, they will always try and find a way.

27

petrol head,

Edinburgh 22/02/2007 12:58:54

#11: livilion

"Let's face it, even the keenest petrolhead can only drive one car at a time"

I think you're wrong there! There was a petrol company ad in the 60s which showed two Triumph Vitesse convertables being driven down a runway by one man. Both cars were supposed to be fuelled by a different brand of petrol and the object was to prove that the inferior brand produced less mpg than the brand advertised.

Both cars were converted appropriately, one was a left-hooker and the other a right-hooker. As the car with the inferior petrol ran out of fuel, the driver just let it go and then carried on driving the other one down the runway.

This was obviously a set up stunt and the "inferior fuel" car simply had it's ignition cut to make it stop where it was supposed to. Both cars were driven by one man though. I gather that whilst he was practicing for this he wrote off several cars and nearly smashed his legs up in the process.

Of course, this was all in the days when adverts were informative and interesting rather than the stupid-voiced, flashing, jumping around pap that we are subject to today!

Just thought I'd drop in a bit of trivia!

You're 100% right in everything else you say though.

28

Vinny,

Edinburgh 22/02/2007 13:19:10

To answer petrol head's question, they could a lot more power from a Hydrogen fuel cell powered car than a 4.2 v8. A fuel cell with the same dimensions as the Jags supercharged engine could do the same speed if not more than the Veyron easily with a faster 0-60, 0-100, 100-200, 200-250 time. The cars could also be more streamlined with the fuel cell arrangement being housed in the entire base of the car rather than the front, mid or rear. Have a look at the GM hydrogen powered car, it is only a saloon type but the tech is their and it is only this first incarnation. The japanese are also working on some ideas, as they do.

29

Anna,

Glasgow 22/02/2007 13:25:55

I don't know what the absolute solution to congestion is, but I could suggest to Mr Blair a good place to start.

I for one would be perfectly willing to switch my commute from car to train, if it weren't for the fact that the train company is robbing commuters blind by hiking up their fare from £5.50 for an off-peak return to £7.90 return if you travel before 9am. And for the extra £2.40, you have the privilege of standing all the way.

Mr Blair could start his fight against congestion by legislating against this kind of blatant daylight robbery and encouraging workers on a modest wage back onto the trains.

30

Paula,

22/02/2007 14:21:53

#29 Anna, you hit the nail squarely on the head.

No one wants yet another tax, one more way of making sure those (like my family) on low wages have as little as possible at the end of the month to live on. But if there was a decent public transport system, if we could afford to go by train and bus and know those trains and buses would arrive and depart when they were supposed to and not cost ridiculous amounts then it may gain support.

From Linlithgow to Edinburgh off-peak it is now £6.00. Not encouraging really.

So if they reduce other car taxes but introduce this other tax what is the point? Idiots.

31

I'm no really here,

22/02/2007 14:27:06

I hope every single one of the 1.8m people send him an e-mail back rejecting his excuses and re-affirming their opposition to the plans.

32

Allan(handofgod137),

22/02/2007 14:52:07

I used to commute to work by bus and train, but gave up as the journey time by car is approx 1 hour 1 way, and costs less than £40/week for fuel, whereas on public transport it takes 1.5 hours and cost £65/week. No brainer really.

33

lisa,

perth 22/02/2007 15:30:37

My computer decided that Number 10s email was spam.

34

Choosername,

22/02/2007 18:00:54

Blair is known for being a technophobe; he has played on it, as he will parade his weaknesses as virtues, in the past - so the implication that this is a personal email is false. This lie has passed without question. We are now nicely conditioned to expect our government to lie as a matter of course, and Blair's legacy is shown to be the complete disintegration of trust in government, worse than we could have imagined even as we thought the Tories were just covering incompetence. This is what the USSR was like in the 70's folks, and it didn't get better.

35

Edward,

22/02/2007 18:27:21

Its funny
I signed the e-petition about a week ago, but have not received any e-mail form Tony Blair, I wonder why?

36

Eve,

Scotland 22/02/2007 19:31:25

#3. Guga: Tony's crupted with the power Just like Maggie was.

He clearly thinks peope will obsever the fact he's PM and therefore trust him to save us form the big bad oppoisition who ever it is this week/ today/ hour or minute.

Shame someone should really tell that people don't always have respect for athority. I'll gess he'll only learn that when he's been chucked out when they put his wee statue next too Maggies and his pointing at her's. They'd look like a proper couple of cruped PM's of the past.

Sorry I'm getting a wee bit carried away with this train of thought.

37

Eve,

Scotland 22/02/2007 19:37:23

1.8million Emails, am suprised he didn't pulll system down. Or maybe he sent them that time I couldn't get on the internet. Thanks Tony, you gave me a reson to scive my uni research.


I wonder if he's concedered email thouse of us who sined the E-Pition on an independence referndom.
I can't help but wonderwhat he would say too us!!!!

38

Auckland Arab,

New Zealand 22/02/2007 20:27:10

Tony Blair has totally lost the plot (again). Has he forgotten that it is supposed to be a representative democracy? Can we call it democracy when the will and views of the vast majority are totally ignored and the exact opposite point of view is imposed on us. Blair cannot and will not ever win this argument, so what is the solution? Well firstly, vote him out at the first opportunity (and take that tree hugger Tavish McBogle with him). Secondly a political party comes up with a carrot approach to traffic congestion instead of the constant "stick" approach.

Pricing people off the road is a totally nuts idea as it will hurt the poorest, least able, least mobile and once the dust settles and people accept it as another cost, the problems will re-appear (if they ever go away). It then becomes a spiral of ever increasing costs to drive more people off the road. It is fatally flawed and the majority of people in the UK are AGAINST it. Solution ? A few suggestions:

1. Start with parents driving their kids to school. Everyone in places like Edinburgh knows that a lot of the traffic congestion goes away when it is school holiday time. Doh, someone make the connection ! There must be a way of reducing this problem (what about free school buses?).

2. Public transport - real investment in a real infrastructure.

3. Deal with the high cost of public transport. Why are trains so expensive in the UK compared to places like France, Germany, etc. If public transport was cheap, frequent, reliable (and we had a lot more of it), lots more people would use it.

3. Tax incentives for employees who work from home.

4. Incentives for car pooling.

5. Tax breaks for people or employees who use their cars less than a specified mileage every year (maybe refund road tax or give them a discount on their petrol tax).

6. Make companies disclose how much of their freight goes by road v rail and amend company tax to reflect th

39

Miss Jean Brodie,

22/02/2007 22:53:20

Taxation of Mass Destruction ! Sounds like a reason to boot the Union into oblivion!

40

Ryan,

23/02/2007 00:45:04

39:
But it won't effect Scotland in the slightest. Transport is a devolved matter to both Scotland and Wales, and neither the Executive or Assembly have any plans to implement this plan in either country. It's being done in England only, at the behest of the Minister for English Transport, Douglas Alexander, a Scot representing a Scottish constituency. In this situation, the English have every right to point the finger of accusation at Scotland.

10:
The English have no more children than the average Scot. They are however suffering the effects of the Governments mass immigration policy, which was put in place purely to stop the population decline in Scotland, Wales, and the North of England. As anyone but an idiot could have guessed, the majority of new migrants settled in the wealthy South. Go figure.

41

livilion,

livingston 23/02/2007 01:14:31

#29. Anna, Glasgow
When I lived in Watford I was within easy walking distance of Watford Central and the Northern Line.

The Tube was aye breaking down and no good if you needed to be anywhere on time and not arrive blinded by your own sweat, or have your pocket dipped by the obligatory Eastern/Central European beggar and her gang.
( roll on, the Leith and Pilton Tramway)

The railway was aye crowded, the reason?
The platforms were too short to put on enough carriages to cope with the numbers wanting to travel.

The answer?

Keep bumping up the fares to dissuade(poor) folk from using their overcrowded trains.

Next,
introduce congestion charging to dissuade (poor)folks from taking their cars into London.

At this time it could take me between 2 to 4 hours to drive 19 miles into the West End during 'rush hour'.

In the paraphrased words of Crocodile Mick Dundee
'Heck, that ain't congestion, NOW THIS is congestion!'
It once took me 12 hours to drive 100miles from London Docklands to Birmingham.

We talk here about congestion but it is not the same beast they're describing in London.(an hour to do 40 miles?)

There the quickest way to travel is by bicycle, if you can shower and change before work, and don't mind arriving covered in muck sticking to your sweat (here you'd be pushing your bike because the winter gales are gonna blow you under a bus).

It also helps if you're not prone to high blood pressure or heart failure.

Sound familiar?

42

livilion,

livingston 23/02/2007 01:26:47

40. Ryan
That'll be wealthy Mile End and Whitechapel or Leyton would it?

I knew about the immigration drive by Holyrood to fill the skillsgaps in Scotland.

The policy for Northern England and Wales surprises me,
I thought they had an employment and investment shortage.

Westminster encouraging immigration then?
Perhaps I've misjudged Tony Bliar, and Westminster in general.

I had them marked for xenophobic.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.