"Members of the public should have a greater say. Their views, ... should be taken into account, but they should not in themselves determine policy."

Charming! How considerate!

And what business have we (I wonder) to call ourselves a democracy if the views of the public do not - ultimately - determine policy?

Geoffrey Alderman, London, England

"It simply shows that a small minority of the British people, when they receive in their inboxes a paranoid conspiracy theory promoted by a bunch of extremists, get worried by it."

How arrogant! How can you know why over a million people signed it? And as for

"Almost nobody with any understanding of the issues is opposed to road pricing in some form."

the kindest thing to say is, are you sure you understand all the issues (including those affecting personal liberty) as well as you claim, and don't you think that in a democracy it is incumbent on the government to obtain consent to a policy, rather than impose it on an unconvinced population?

Alex Swanson, Milton Keynes, UK

I agree with Peter. It's so easy just to click on a petition (if you have a computer, of course, which many of the elderly, very young, very poor etc. who perhaps can't even drive or afford a car but are adversely affected by congestion and exhaust pollution, may well not have). How many would sign one for taxes to be slashed? We elect governments not to bend with the wind of people's short-term selfishness but to do what is best in the long-term interests of the country and all its citizens, not just a vocal section of them.

Barry, Wallington, South London

What an arrogant, pompous and ill-informed little diatribe from Richard B! Is he a member of Blair's outer office staff? He certainly manifests all the usual trademarks; smear (paranoid, extremists etc), arrogation of a supposed intellectual high ground (almost nobody with any understanding) and ignorance of the subject (rejection of the principle....). Motorists already accept paying for road space and usage through taxation. Motor fuel taxation is an efficient way to charge or penalise road users, as thirstier engines, higher mileages and time spent in heavy traffic all increase costs to the individual. The system for collecting this tax is already in place, can easily be adjusted and is difficult to avoid. In contrast, road pricing has all the requirements to be another IT blackhole, sucking in billions for implementation and running costs. Does anyone believe that road pricing proponents would similarly dismiss a petition supporting its introduction?

Pete, Taunton, Somerset

Please let's not mistake the road pricing petition for anything to do with democracy or the will of the people. It simply shows that a small minority of the British people, when they receive in their inboxes a paranoid conspiracy theory promoted by a bunch of extremists, get worried by it. That's all.

If, having developed a clear understanding of the growing congestion problem, and considered other potential ways of dealing with it, the British people still reject the principle of people paying for the road space they use and the congestion they cause - fine. Let them suffer growing congestion until they change their mind.

Almost nobody with any understanding of the issues is opposed to road pricing in some form. This is the one issue that unites Greenpeace with the Institute of Directors. The public will follow them in due course.

Richard B, London,

What would have been the response if this article was published with regard to the Dunblane petition back in 1997? People would have been baying for the authors blood....And at that time, new labour seemed very interested in paying attention to petitions. Quel suprise, another U-turn....
This article essentially belittles the right to anyone to posess an opinion independent of "your government knows best, so shut up and do as you're told". Democracy supposedly works in such a way that every voice holds equal import, and the answer therefore is to start a pro-road pricing petition to directly compare. Good luck with that, as even the most ardent greenpiece activist will be unhappy about the increase of goods& service costs from road pricing. Failing that, REFERENDUM- see what the coutry really thinks. The government had best tread carefully over this- the high handed attitude they are presenting deserves a sharp reminder at the polls that they are supposed to represent our interests.

Pete North, manchester,

"Members of the public should have a greater say . . . but they should not in themselves determine policy." Really! Surely it is the public, the electorate (as opposed to registered voters) who *should* make policy. It is not sufficient that elected members of parliament, with party and personal agendas, should dictate the direction policy should take; here in California the 'initiative" procedures can influence policy of every kind, from local property taxation to the matter of assisted suicide. Although it is sometimes felt that too many initiatives are on the ballot, for the most part it makes Democracy work at ground level, something which is sadly lacking in the parliamentary system in the UK.

David Cunard, Los Angeles, USA

Two things stand out:
1) "The key is to convince petitioners that their views are being seriously considered" - Poor choice of words? I think you mean to say "petitioners views should be seriously considered".

2) If we have a choice between listening to a part of the population, or listening to no one at all, we should choose no-one, because that is most balanced.

Jack Thursby, Sheffield, UK

I think you are right, because a petition is really no more than a direct opinion poll. This situation does help to put the word democracy in perspective and as equally a matter of opinion. We are governed, and we can merely hope that the people governing take into account the right factors at the right time. As your title suggests, the word democracy is essentially nonsensical in it's application to modern national government.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Participatory democracy has inevitable pitfalls but there can be no other substitute for the airing of strong views by the ordinary member of the public in the higher echelons of power. Some other countries use their Supreme Court through epistolary jurisdiction to ventilate grievances. At the end people talk and Government walks. Walks away most of the time.

Anil Gayan, Curepipe, Mauritius

California regularly has referendums on issues affecting the inhabitants and is closer to true democracy than anything seen in the UK. Petitions do gauge the feeling over issues such as the one on the BBC over the right to protect ones own home. The problem is government and especially this Labour one aren't trusted over any issue that involves more tax. Most feel that Labours track record is to tax, tax and tax again but it never goes on the original purpose of the tax. If a pie chart were produced by the government on tax spending similar to local councils, I'm certain it would prove very interesting to see where the money really goes. Its very unlikely to happen however for fear of embarrassments all around the different ministries and government prefers to keep us in the dark.

Mike, Denia, Spain

Which particular 'representative democracy' do you have in mind ? Blair's 23% mandate, or Livingstone's 8% ?
Do they not have PR in Scottish Parliamentary elections ? I think I remember that they do, which would go a long way to explain Scottish politicos attentiveness to public opinion.
Only a 'village insider' could ignore this fundamental defect in our parliamentary system.

Tom Benford, Kyoto, Japan