How can Mr Parris expect any sensible person to accept what a stupid tartan socialist like Alexander has proposed.
Quite apart from the infringement of civil liberty his plan is technological madness and impractical. It is clear he knows nothing about IT- or little else except sociast interfering like all good Labour MPs.
The solution is to rid ourselves of all the socialist Jocks at Westminster and let the rest of us manage our own affairs

Jimmy, Woking, UK

I go along with the thinking of Pete Collins in this. I'm not so much against the principle of what's being proposed, but I am against it happening, because I know, without a shadow of doubt, that the public sector will make a complete and utter hash of setting up and running it. I just can't come to terms with supporting the taking on of another few thousand people, on over-the-odds salaries and index-linked pensions, to mismanage an unnecessarily complex structure that doesn't add much real value to what we already have. Grumpy, or what!

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

The idea that, "...if you don’t like it you can kick me out at the next election..." is flawed and misleading. In a system where we vote for whichever of the political parties offers the least unattractive raft of policies (which they may or may not pursue) we cannot pick and choose individual policies and have to accept the bad with the good. The current website petition is, of course, a waste of time and money but it gives us an interesting glimpse of a system wherein the electorate gets the opportunity more than once per 5 years of giving input or even direction to the serious issues of the day. What a pity that the loony petitions and the (deliberately?) mediocre way it is being operated are making it look ridiculous.

Mark, Silsoe,

Congestion is itself a deterrent - if there were other affordable and acessible public transport options available people would adopt them - what does road pricing do except put a charge on poorer people travelling to work? Too many metropolitan commentators appear not to realise what a burdensome and costly trouble it is to get to work every day.

Peter York, Tonbridge,

All motorists are equal, but some will be more equal than others.

D emery, Bedworth, UK

Road tax. This doesn't actually exist. The disc on the windscreen is Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), just a tax on owning the car. The road infrastructure (which is slowly crumbling away) is paid for out of general taxation. The use of the road is free at the point of use, and that is what the Road User Charging is tackling, right or wrong. Paying VED doesn't entitle someone to drive a car on the road. There are other requirements (MOT / licensing / insurance) before a car driver is permitted to drive on the road. Please note - permitted. Only non-motorised users (pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders) are entitled to be on the road as a matter of right - contrary to popular mythology.

Francis King, Bath, UK

What a patronizing article, at least the part about Road Pricing. So typical of the current political elite. They work within a system that was invented hundreds of years ago when it might take a week to travel to London and news travelled by word of mouth. We have a macro political system where we get to vote on platforms, not issues and accountability is based on 5 year cycles. What's wrong with dragging these guys into the 21st century and using modern technologies to create a micro political system where we vote on individual issues like road funding?
Even today, without using the modern technologies like the internet in the US members of the public get to vote on issues like local taxes, roads and so on. Why is this beyond the wit of the British?

andy goreing, Torquay,

'free road space'? Only if you pay no road tax or insurance & you steal fuel. I keep hearing this line from fans of Road Pricing & It's a lie. If road space was free, I'd welcome a charge. Better-still, if I could believe it would go towards making the roads better.

Andrew Potter, Dereham, Norfolk

Mr Parris needs to understand that in a democracy the public must have the final word. Whether 'the public' is right or wrong is irrelevant. Far too many politicians seem to believe that their duty is to give the public what they - the politicians - think is best, rather than what the public wants. This form of government (which Mr Parris seems to favour) is not a democracy at all but - at most - a benevolent collective despotism.

I signed the anti-road-pricing petition without any prompting. I expect the government to take careful note of my view (and, it appears, of the views of over a million other UK citizens) and not dismiss this view with the argument that 'mummy knows best,' which I find deeply insulting.

Geoffrey Alderman, London, England

We already have a means of limiting car journeys - it is taxation. The idea of road pricing is just so New Labour. It will involve vast expense and one can feel the air of expectation among the management consultants. It will be a neat way to redeploy all those IT amateurs who will have failed to install and make fit for use the Connecting for Health computer system.
If fuel, road fund licence and indeed the price we pay for cars are all raised, less people will drive less miles. This will be cheaper,( the system for collection is already in place) and it will be just as unfair as road pricing, but it should free up receipts which can be used for reducing other taxes or investing in public transport infra structure, even for us up here in the North.

mary, Huddersfield,

There is only one solution to Britain's road crisis (where it is a crisis, which is not everywhere, as some have pointed out) is efficient, cheap public transport. Since I obtained my bus pass last year (Lincolnshire) I leave the car at home or drive to the nearest bus stop where there is a free car park and travel to the next town, e.g. Spalding, on the bus for free. The bus usually transports a couple of dozen other passengers, many of which also enjoy concessionary fares. Now think what additional burden those two dozen would be placing on the roads and the environment if they all drove their cars instead! Our public transport infrastructure is far too expensive to make it a viable alternative for most people.

Mike , Spalding, England

I'm rather in agreement with Mr. Watson. The poor stand a chance of being hit disproportionately hard, and it is a shame to see Matthew Parris scrambling to give the government a hand on this one. It is also of note that in several paragraphs, the authoritarian nature of the scheme - presumably one of the 'myths' that the Transport Secretary refers to - is not mentioned once.

However, if we can have a privacy-neutral pricing mechanism that encourages the well-off (ie not the poor) to lessen their car dependency, then I am all for it. I count myself as well off, and so would agree to being charged for road usage too, providing that tracking data is anonymised before payment. Mr. Alexander would do well to satisfy people on these two issues (the core concerns behind the internet petition) and he might not then have such a battle on his hands.

Jon, Birmingham, UK

Free road space? What planet are you on today Mr Parris? We pay for our road use through a 'pay by the mile' scheme which also penalises us for using inefficient cars. Its called fuel tax. The only changes if we were to move to a computer based system would be to make the price of the system rocket needlessly (satisfying this governments need to waste huge amounts of public money), and to be able to track every car in the country (satisfying this governments need to control us at the individual level).

Please dont try to suggest that the roads are some government owned resource that they graciously let us use - our parents grafted hard to create the roads. They are the arteries of the country. They are an abusable resource that the government can hold to ransom. And you would encourage them it seems.

Pete Collins, London, UK

You're correct of course Matthew. The Westminster chattering classes know what's best for us and of course use their obvious high moral and ethical standards to ensure we peons are managed properly.

David Turner, Leeds,

' If you dont' like it, kick me out at the next election'. If only it were so simple - Mr Alexander represents a Scottish constituency hardly affected by congestion or any proposed charge. Scottish voters will continue to vote on local issues, and the current band of Scottish MP's will continue to impose their will on the rest of the UK.
Anyway, kick them out to be replaced by whom - if all political parties want to impose road charges because it increases tax revenue, then a direct approach via the web is the only option open to the public - unless of course we go to street demonstrations, which worked rather well with the poll tax.

tony dummelow, birmingham, uk

I think the way this article looks is in print may be different to how it is presented on the website, is there supposed to be a separation between the section on road pricing, public transport and France, and the section on Iraq and Maysan?

Chris, Leeds,

"...free road space..."? Just what am I paying my road tax for, if it is not to pay for my use of the road. It is in no way "free".

Mark Browne, Farnborough, UK

"if the public really do think we can carry on offering free road space to a growing number of cars, the public are simply wrong."
Misses the point entirely.

The fact is that we DO pay for the road space. It is called Motor vehicle excise duty, and if you do it right, you get a pretty disc to display in your windscrean, or attached to the frame.

That is my particular complaint. Not that I must pay. But that I am to be expected to pay twice. Whilst seeing no evidence that the present tax is being spent on the problem any way.

Are we to expect the new tax to be any different?

Ragnar Vagmornasson, Berlin , Preussen/Germany

I think Matthew slipped up on this one. To slam the "voice of the people" smacks of Blairite cronyism - a bit late if you ask me!

I came across this comment on his article which may be of interest:

http://www.renditionstune.org/?p=64

Enjoy!

Kevin, Brighton, E. Sussex

Not listen to us? I think the Government now wished they had listened to the protestors on the Iraq War. And it's not OK to say simply kick them out at the next election. We've got to suffer this Government until the next election and that is sore.

R Gray, Glasgow,

"Perhaps Mr Parris would care to ASK us whether we want to be ignored, rather than grandly asserting it? In the age of the internet, we need fewer people talking "for us". We need to be able to express our views, and have them listened to. It's called democracy, you know."

Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK

I'd like to ask Mr Pearse whether he considers that mass consensus is a guaranteed route to optimal decision-making, and, if not, what level of mental mediocrity he'd be prepared to tolerate in return for allowing numbers, rather than ideas, to dominate the political process?

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

Fair point Mathew but ' that the signatories are ignorant of his plans ' lies at the heart of the cynicism that pervades. If Politicians allow rumours such as the 'big brother will be tracking your every journey etc.' is it any wonder that people become animated at such plans.

It is pointless for Douglas Alexander to say that he too would be a signatory if the myths were true if he does nothing to dispel them!

Paul Williams, Blackpool,

Can Matthew please tell me where free road space is currently being offered? (Third paragraph)
I have today received a reminder to renew my car tax disc. I have always understood that payment for this entitles me the use of the road.

V E Davies, Hengoed, U.K.

" .... and that if the public really do think we can carry on offering free road space to a growing number of cars, the public are simply wrong. "

I'd be interested to know where Matthew gets the notion of 'free road space' being offered? Unless he means vacant of course. I was under the impression that already motorists paid to use the roads.
The government well may take no notice of the petition, but they must be made aware of the feelings about it, and the No 10 Petitions site is a way to do it.

Bill, Horsham, Sussex

Matthew Parris is absolutely right that parliament is there to make the tough decisions we are too timid or selfish to make on our own. They should listen, yes, but not necessarily obey. The petition on road pricing shows two things: one, many motorists are selfish and/or ill-informed, and two, the government need to explain the road pricing scheme in primary school terms, so that some of these people will actually realise it's better for the country, for drivers and for the planet

Richard Milne, Edinburgh, UK

Poor Mr Parris - a bit short on Valentines' cards were we so needed to spout some controverisial twaddle to gret the ego massaged? Rather than perpetuating the outdated case for representational democracy Parris should be encouraging the return to true democracy. The move away from a show of hands was forced on societies by growth, separation and lack of vibrant and dynamic communications. The internet has now brought us full circle - separation is no longer an issue we can debate and vote online. Of course the 'road tax vote' was ridiculous - but that it was so is evidence of the paucity of intellect of the politicians we are offered at elections and of their cohorts of hangers on. We now have the capability to do without these people and we should be working our way through an evolutionary process to do just that. Wake up Parris - forget your ego and get back to your usual laudable caustic critiques.

D J Swainson, Chippenham, Wiltshire

Yet another comment on the road-pricing petition that misses the key point - congestion charging only works by pricing the poorer people of an area off it's road network, meaning the freedom and flexibility of using a car on our roads can only be enjoyed by the rich elite.
I'm sure you're pleased to see the old class system kicking in again in such a way Matthew.

Mark Watson, Birmingham, UK

Sorry Matthew you have obviously lost the plot here.
Were you feeling a little left out of this matter and with all the best points of view already made by your collegues, you had to come up with this load of tripe.

Shame on you.

Jimmy, York, England

How to pay for use of the roads ? Currently we pay a large annual tax - the "Road Fund Licence" which is absorbed into general taxation revenue. Same with the high taxes (excise and VAT) on fuel. Abolish these and charge by the mile ? Perhaps, but the principal objection to this method is that every journey made would be recorded - something the police would doubtless welcome (technology to the rescue once again) but it has fearful implications for civil liberty. "If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear". True, but who decides what is wrong ? A future government could well be despotic......

David Thomas, Slough, UK

Perhaps Mr Parris would care to ASK us whether we want to be ignored, rather than grandly asserting it? In the age of the internet, we need fewer people talking "for us". We need to be able to express our views, and have them listened to. It's called democracy, you know.

Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK

A couple of week's back Mr Parris told us how relaxed and comfortable he feels in Blair's new UK culture of Cool Britannia. How insulated the commentariat must be from the gun murder culture of the capital city, from meeting children of the poor urban culture revealed by UNICEF, and the general coarseness spreading around us. Not Maysan yet, but more so than pre 1997. I suppose that the liberal elite generally is wealthy and well protected from the realities they help create?

Tim, Oxford, UK

Same old views from within the M25. If you got out more, you'd find congestion is largely confined to small pockets of SE England, and some parts of the motorway network. Why on earth should people who don't live or drive there have to put up with any of the taxes and state intrusion of Mr Alexander's massive centralised toll tax. And why should we pay for the bureaucracy that'll be needed to pay for it? Local solutions to local problems, please. If you spent time in England outside the M25 this would be ovious. But I guess you don't..

Michael Taylor, Old Malton,

I was wondering whether Mathew Parris had mixed up two articles. In one breath he was talking about a "delightful little rural village tucked away in la France profonde" and in the next breath he was talking about a lawless Iraqi province. I had to go back and re-read the previous couple of paragraphs. Not up to your usual standards, Matthew; or was this the fault of a sub-editor or proof-reader?

Stewart Ware, London,

Road Pricing = Brilliant Idea. I dont want to be tracked 24/7 by a device in my car, but pay to park, a motorway toll, congestion zone charge, of course. The facts are simple - roads are busier, travel times longer, something has to be done. Its a coordinated responce that needed- the above car measures, the planning of business parks/offices near existing public transport infrastructure, transport limited zones around schools, tax on unnessesaryily poluting cars etc. Dont ask me about it in some namby pamby soft lefty way, just get on with it, just do it.

Al, Newcastle, UK

Tens of thousandsh petitioned the government not to go to war in Iraq - this petition took the form of an organised march. It would seem that marchers (petitioners) were right. If we have lost the war they must have been right. Seems that the MPs took the same view of petitions as Mr Parris 'This is right for Britain, this is what we will do'.

C Deg, London, UK

"Why not just own up and admit we've lost in Iraq" urges Matthew. This has been his line for quite a while now. Two years ago he claimed, in a manic article, that we were going to cut and run from Iraq and called for apologies from Messrs Gove, Kamm, Aaronovitch et al.
It's a good job he wasn't in charge during WW2. After each early setback - Dunkirk, the U-Boat losses, the fall of Singapore - Parris would have hoisted the white flag.

arnoldo, Coventry,

Indeed, political classes do not listen to public opinion - any more than to the punditry of the commentariat!

Ibnezraster, Homerton, UK

Petitions to bring back hanging, nuclear matters and so on would be pointless because these are manifesto items which the voting public can make their choice.

If road pricing had been in a political party manifesto, yes I would agree that a petition was irrelevant, If it had been, then over a million votes would have gone to the party that said it wasn't going down this road. David Davis has discovered this with the ID Card declaration.

I'll betcha the phrase "listening to the voters" will be a dead duck from now on.

Internet polling - who said "If you could vote for it, the government would ban it".

michael murphy, brightlingsea, england

Matthew, you are a politician. You KNOW you know better than everybody else.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

Mr Parris has missed the point completely. This is nothing like the petitions that have occured before. Whilst I agree that government should not be swayed by the whims of the populace this matter is something entirely different. People in this country view the current government with a mixture of frustration, despair and contempt. They see a shallow group of opportunists who are riding rough shod over every princiole that used to be cornerstones of British society. The scales are dropping from the collective eyes Mr Parris and this is only the beginning. Wait until the May elelctions and watch Labour's vote go away in a puff of smoke. Unless of course Mr Brown manages to put even more people on the public payroll.

Pete, Lincoln, UK

Mad, the man's mad.

Gordon Layton, London,