13 May 2007
15 Apr 2007
I think democracy fails because those who represent the electorate are not directly accountable to them, and the electorate has no chance to discuss matters with them. It fails because the person elected is seeking approval and endorsement from thousands, if not millions of people they have never - can never - meet.
I have been considering an alternative for many years. It flies in the face of what people consider to be true democracy, but I believe it offers a more responsive and responsible form of governance.
First of all, every locality of 100* households elects a representative for themselves - who must be a resident in one of those households. 100 of these representatives form the local or borough council, representing 10,000 households.
The local council then elects from its membership a chairperson or speaker and a regional representative. 100 councils elect 100 regional representatives sit on the regional council, which is responsible for around 1 million households.
Then the region elects their own speaker and a national representative, who sits on the national parliament (100 million households) with the other regional electives.
Finally, all the national parliaments elect one of their own to sit on a world parliament, to replace the UN and adopt some state sovereignty in a manner similar to the EU (not the US, as the federal government has too much sovereignty over the states, and abuses it constantly). This world government would elect, from its membership, a world president.
Most importantly, any constituency may, at any time, convene a recall election that can replace their representative with another member of their group.
This means that the 100 households where the world president lives can, at any time, depose him. So might the 100 local representatives he is supposed to represent. So might the regional council, and so might his or her own national government.
At each level the representatives will be able to know all the names and concerns of his whole constituency. Every vote would count because you would not be voting for a name with a party affiliation, but for your neighbour, or the colleague you have been debating budgets with for three years.
While it is true that with this system, not everyone gets to vote for the people at the top, it is also true that the people at the top can never forget their original constituency, and they can never forget that the people at each level of the heirarchy have a similar vulnerability to a recall by ordinary people. It would lead to a fairly fluid make-up of each council, since representatives would stay in place until they are recalled, but they can be recalled at, perhaps, less than a week's notice.
This system also allows the party systems of most democracies to be abolished. They are inherently corrupt as representatives put loyalty to their party above that to their constituency. And as has been all too obvious lately, getting millions of people to vote for you is expensive and that means you can easily be bought off by corporate interests.
Getting elected by 100 people, on the other hand, is relatively cheap and can be a matter of simply talking to them over a meal a few at a time. Getting elected by other politicians, moreover, means that your currency is no longer currency, but the political motivations and bugbears of your electorate.
That is democracy.
* all values are approximate and can be adjusted to reflect local geography and existing political divisions.
13 Jan 2007
There are currently two petitions on the UK government's No10 website, competing for signatures on opposite sides of this debate:
Traveltax which is painfully misinformed and yet has about 300,000 signatories, and
Yes2roadpricing which is a simple plea for action on the environment and has under 100.
You can probably guess which one I signed.
In debates with friends I hear the same arguments presented again and again.
- It's an added tax and road users are already too heavily taxed.
- The money won't be used to improve public transport.
- It will allow the government to track everyone and is an invasion of our privacy.
- It's not technically affordable. People won't want to pay £200 to have a GPS device installed in their cars
It's an added tax
Every proposal for a national road pricing scheme so far has included some formula to indicate that it will replace road tax and/or fuel duty. However, there is no legislation currently in place to permit a national scheme. If it is an added tax, it is an added local tax.
The enabling bill for road pricing at present specifically states that such charging schemes are to be local, under the direct control of individual highway authorities, and that trunk road schemes (the only national level schemes) are reserved for bridges and tunnels more than 600m in length, or for trunk roads as requested to integrate with a local scheme. In other words, the government cannot introduce a national scheme under this bill.
Local pricing schemes are inevitably an added tax. There is no viable mechanism for reducing either road tax or fuel duty to compensate for the income gained from local road pricing. The only likely reductions will be to council taxes in the area covered, and even that will happen only if the local people force their councils to make it happen.
Take, for example, my local council. Their gross expenditure on roads and transport services for 2005/06 was £1.4 million. Only £112,000 of this was provided by related income (such as taxi licences, bus route concessions and the like). The rest had to come from the council's other income, which is 45% derived from the Council Tax. With a local congestion charge in place the council tax could, in theory, be reduced by 25%.
It won't be used for public transport.
The money raised by such a scheme is cordoned off and exclusively reserved for the authority's local transport plan. (see Schedule 11) This means that it can only be used to maintain roads for which it is responsible, invest in new roads, and to support local public transport initiatives.
It will allow the government to track everyone.
This is patently absurd. First of all, the government can already track everyone if it should want to - via mobile phones, CCTV and number-plate recognition and high resolution sattelites. Secondly, having a GPS locator in your vehicle is seen by many people as a benefit - it allows your car to be located and recovered if it is stolen. And lastly, why on earth would the government want to spend billions of pounds on the personnel required to keep track of everyone (and how could it survive the next general election?).
It may be the case that the technology could be used to catch and prosecute criminals more easily. It may even be the case that it could be used to enforce speed limits through average speed calculations and fines. But anyone objecting on those grounds is simply declaring their opinion that they have the right to break the law.
This is a fact of life, in any case, because the UK police are already implementing a national database of vehicle movements using number plate recognition. This publication by the ACPO ANPR STEERING GROUP (Word Doc) makes the intentions and scope perfectly clear. There remains some debate about the legality of the system under privacy and human rights laws, but as an extension of existing monitoring rights afforded to the UK police, it is minimal. Implementing this system without harnessing the information to provide a more equitable (based on actual road use, rather than a flat fee, as road tax is at present) taxation system would be negligence on the part of the government.
It's not affordable
A recent feasibility study declared that the issue of adding technology to vehicles made a national scheme unaffordable until around 2014. Using number-plate recognition systems on a national scale is seen as far more practical. The cameras are widely in place and putting additional ones at, say, every motorway slip road to initiate charging for the motorway network, would be affordable (if the legislation allowed it). The fact that the Police are considering it purely on an law-enforcement basis shows that it is relatively cheap.
As for the cost of the device and people not wanting to pay - people are already paying £200 for a GPS device to go in their cars. What they are really objecting to is connecting that device to a transponder so that it can be polled by groundstations and the information used to charge them. In fact, the most cost-effective method does not involve any additional equipment being placed within the car. Only the number plate is needed, and that is a legal requirement already.
On the whole, I regard the objections to road-pricing ill-informed and facile. The current situation is that it is very early days and, as reported in the (anti-government and vehemently anti road-pricing) Telegraph recently, the official Dept of Transport position is:
"No decision has been taken on whether to implement a national road pricing scheme. 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."
The opposition petition, calling the concept a travel tax, is full of misleading statements and outright lies about what the state of play is with respect to road pricing. It plays up to the most irrational fears of the UK neocon tendency, and ignores the reality. When looked at rationally, the only way that road pricing could be introduced without being an added tax is by making it a national scheme.
The purpose of road pricing schemes is primarily to relate the cost of driving to the impact it has on the infrastructure. Congestion costs everyone money and time. It consumes massive quantities of fuel for no benefit. It pollutes cities and wears out roads. The very people who object to this measure are the same people who complain about the traffic queues and roadworks that double the duration of their daily commute.
How a national scheme could work
Technology: Harnessing the data from the poilice vehicle movements system means not having to add anything to any car. Vehicle number plate recognition, as implemented without any major hitches in London, permits the tracking of vehicles past as many points as you have suitable cameras, and installing the cameras and data networks can be a gradual thing, concentrating on the worst congestion areas first.
Implementation: A VNPR system could go universal from day one (unlike a GPS system). As soon as enough cameras are in place, charges can be levied against the car owner via the police and DVLA computer systems. Charges can be adjusted for vehicle types, to match the current road tax regime, and can be collected as an annual bill with the registration renewal, or whenever the vehicle changes hands.
Tax implications: The two main taxes for road users are Road Tax and Fuel Duty. The former (termed Vehicle Excise Duty) is worth around £5 Billion to the government each year, while the latter (Fuel Excise Duty) is worth around £25 Billion. (source). Thus the current tax on road users amounts to £30 Billion annually, or £1,000 per vehicle per year. By comparison, the annual expenditure on roads in England is £6 Billion. Replacing Vehicle Excise Duty with road pricing can be justified on road system maintenance grounds alone, provided that it is a direct replacement with comparable levels of revenue.
Fuel duty has never been used as a direct road funding tool and has always been justified as a 'dangerous luxury' tax, similarly to cigarettes and alcohol. In time it would be preferable for fuel duty to be replaced by a general carbon tax on all fossil fuels, and I have no doubt that this will, eventually, happen. But arguing that fuel duty should be reduced to compensate for national road pricing fees is only tenable if the charges for roads exceeded £6 Billion a year in total.