´óÏó´«Ã½

It used to be the case that to run a national campaign on anything required a large amount of resources.

To create a million person petition, you needed to get people to stand in the rain and persuade people to sign it.

it took effort and commitment on yoru part, as well as a willingness to commit resources.

The No10 petitions service, which is still only open for public testing, rather than a full live reliable service, means that to start a petition, you only need an idea, and don't need the infrastructure.

Which is great for engagement of the public.

But can be abused by a large national newspaper, decides to run its own campaign on a government service at no cost to itself.

And that same newspaper then runs banner headlines about the site going down. At least it saves them the work of running their own petition.

Sam (No.1) is spot-on. This particular petition has been hijacked by those with an axe to grind against the government. It's an easy target for those with access to wide email lists and media outlet. It's a similar example to the fox hunting vote-rigging on the Today programme's vote for a new Act.

Though not all, a number of the signatories are those who think they have the right to drive at whatever speed they want to regardless of whether it's above the speed limit for that road. The same ones who then cry foul when they get caught by a speed camera.

But will they listen?. The point, surely, of this massive thumbs-down to road tolls is that people don't want it. This is vox populi, and that voice is shouting loud and clear that it's infuriated with this government's road policies -- to name but one.

If the government sees the object of e-petitions as a way to gather a million email addresses so that they can act like the average Nigerian spammer, count me out of e-democracy.

Give us an old fashioned paper vote, and soon. At least that way we can rid ourselves of this propaganda driven e-government and get a real one that listens instead.

Nick wrote... "That is to ignore the fact that the boys behind the scenes at Number Ten have gone out to make this possible and to turn it to their own purposes. Next week over a million people will get an e-mail direct from the government debating the issue - an engagement which will bypass those of us in the media. This gives ministers some control of a debate which would otherwise be dictated by the enemies of this policy."

That is quite frankly the most skewed piece of nonsense I have ever read, Nick. Of course, they're not going to engage. Of course, they have not gone out to make this possible. What tosh.

And just put all the road taxes on fule and we will all pay according to our emissions. Could it be any easier? No. Could it be any more transparent? No.

Whoever is responsible for putting together Downing Street's peition engine is a prat! Clearly, they had no understanding of the power of the Internet.

One of the great benefits of the Internet is that many more people can become involved in the political process. Instead of denigrating this and focusing on the negative aspects we should be celebrating the fact that so many people feel passionately enough to take part.

I'm not denying that certain media outlets may be exploiting this. However, their opponents could just as easily set up a petition in favour of road-charging and co-ordinate a campaign to generate signatures. This is after all what democracy is all about.

Instead of behaving like prehistoric dinosaurs and blaming the Internet and modern technology, politicians would be better served by acknowledging the positives of this expression of democracy.

Is putting yourself on a slippery slope showing empathic solidarity with Mr Blair? And just to show I’m not Guido, Bonnes vacances!

I was though a little concerned about Tony Munro’s response (2) which comes over as the typical politicians trick of not liking the answer so demonise those that say it rather than deal with the issue.

I don't agree with his analysis either, there may be numerous motivations for signing this particular petition but I doubt its that easy to rig it to the nearly 1.4 million votes as of now, including mine. And as for an agenda, anyone with a view, pro or anti, can be said to have one so that’s hardly helpful either.

Leaving aside the civil libertarian issues the point that I and many others keep making is that this government has done little about improving transport capacity and seems to use price ( or as many will have it stealth taxes) as virtually the sole mechanism for managing demand, which is hardly a socially inclusive strategy. Why spend billions developing a system that will contribute nothing to improving capacity? At best all it will due is limit demand to those that can afford it.

Unless you live in a major city buses are an unreliable joke. I spent half an hour in the pouring rain yesterday, with no bus shelter, for a bus that didn't arrive. UK train travel is the most expensive per km in the world and often no better than sardine cans on wheels. Livingstone is expanding the congestion zone when he knows that many have no meaningful alternative. This is in spite of comment to that effect and the fact that the current zone is now achieving little except raise revenue. Cross Rail has remained a fantasy project for much of my lifetime but even if built will do nothing to provide a direct rail link to Heathrow for the 7 million that live to the west of the airport even though it will pass within a mile of the new runway. Just try using public transport to carry a 25 kg suitcase by from "rural" Berkshire to Heathrow for a flight before mid day. I have, I barely got there and by the time I did I just wanted to go home! Just how are seven million of us supposed to avoid using cars for this? Say to hell with business, work and vacations by just staying at home perhaps?

People are just fed up with being charged more and more but not seeing the alternatives being developed. And that just doesn't apply to transport. Plus the fact that virtually every major IT project this government has started has turned into an expensive disaster doesn't help give confidence that road pricing is a cost effective or workable solution even if it was strategically sound. As many keep pointing out if you want to tax travel fuel duty is directly proportional to vehicle fuel efficiency and miles travelled. It is simple and even more reliable to collect than annual car tax.

Government needs to show some form in using the tax they have and are collecting to develop the supply side of this system. Just using additional, ever more complex, bureaucratic and expensive price management systems to restrict demand is just not acceptable and that is why I signed the petition.

Have a pleasant trip home and don't mind the extra airport tax. It just shows that Gordon needs you!

The thing that I find most disturbing about this is the level of denials about the accuracy of the details of the plan.

There is an interesting document published by the Association of Chief Police Officers that deals with automatic numberplate recognition and their plans to use it. You can read it here:

The most interesting thing about this is that, since it's a Microsoft Word document you can see all the recent edits made to it, dodgy dossier-style. There's a lot of stuff that has been deleted, particularly material that refers to the extent to which they are planning national databases of vehicle movements, the official bodies involved, and all sorts of similar stuff.

Reading it, one not only gets the impression that someone has told ACPO to seriously tone it down, but also to not reveal just how widespread work on this is already, and particularly not to reveal the extent to which this is already policy - Without any public debate already!

A cynical mind might jump to the conclusion that all pronouncements from No. 10 recently on this subject are entirely false and not to be trusted.

"Sam (No.1) is spot-on. This particular petition has been hijacked by those with an axe to grind against the government. It's an easy target for those with access to wide email lists and media outlet. It's a similar example to the fox hunting vote-rigging on the Today programme's vote for a new Act."

How is it vote rigging if one side managed to get their supporters out and the other side did not?

The whole thing about campaigning is getting your support out to vote. Using logic the three main parties would be guilty of vote rigging for sending me election information trying to convince me to vote for them.

I signed this petition, not because I was told to by a newspaper (most of us have minds of our own and don't have to blindly be told what to do) but because I don't like the idea of having a device that tracks every move my car makes or the fact that I could end up paying more because I have no choice but to travel to work on a busy motorway.

Tony Blair is supposed to be an intelligent man so why does he not realise that we put up with congestion because we have no other choice. Taxing us more to put up with congestion is just kicking us when we are down.

The worrying aspect about this whole incident is that it is a knee jerk reaction to an issue that we can't afford to avoid. How do we deal with climate change?

It makes me laugh when Tony Blair acts as if he is a leader on this issue but we need to start looking at how far behind we are to countries such as Germany.

I have to agree with Mark E. This petition was about opposition to a policy that is at once a hugely wasteful exercise when a much fairer and more environmentally justifiable tool already exists, and a massive invasion of our civil liberties.

Two points. 1) Anyone who believes the mantra that speed kills should read the entire whole of the safespeed.org website. It is a most excellent collection of well researched argument against speed cameras and attacking the general public for fractionally infringing the limit in the misguided name of safety.

2) The government has already shown that the use of technology to reduce congestion does not easily make money. This is why Red Ken has put the congestion charge up, because he's not actually making a big enough profit. So instead with this scheme they intend to take £16bn off the UK's motorists. £16bn! Where on earth are we supposed to find that kind of money?

I think it is somewhat appropriate that I discovered my email from the Prime Minister on this topic in my junk-mail folder.

Stepping back from the politics for a moment - we have a problem. We all know that; too many vehicles on our roads.

I need to be in my office to work - but not every day. I can easily work fom home one day each week. That reduces my commuting by car by 20%. Exactly the same applies to my wife.

The majority of the employees in my firm could adopt a similar pattern. However, there's an associated cost to the company. We have to equip people with laptops loaded with special software to enable them to access our database remotely. We have to set them up with broadband connectivity etc.

There must be millions of people nationwide who could do at least a part of their job from home on a day o two a week. The effect on traffic congestion could be significant.

Employers may be more likely to persue this route if the government could offer them financial incentives or tax breaks to help offset the set-up costs.

We need to start thinking out of the box (as they say)