Scrapping road tax makes it impossible to charge more polluting vehicles extra.
Scrapping tolls removes one of the few ways of charging the costs of new roads to those who get the benefit (which is a fairer funding mechanism, at least where business is principally driving the demand).
And a good response to an accusation of insincerity would be to point out that governments employ an army of press officers and spin doctors to be insincere on their behalf, so why should those opposing them on the issue do so with one hand tied behind their back. Rouse that rabble! Throw them every argument you think might work. Sign the petition with the most signatures, it generates worse press and makes it more difficult for the government to manoeuvre. Sure you might not agree with all the arguments on the petition yourself, but if you've come to a careful and considered decision it's better a policy be sunk, the care and consideration have done their job. Sinking it (at least through devices like petitions) is about changing perceptions, and you can often do that better on the scale you need by playing a bit fast and loose than by sticking to the principles of your carefully derived argument. Governments are happy enough doing it, because it works better than the alternative; if you want to fight them effectively, should you be happy to do it too?
On a random side note; supposing for the moment that these petitions are taken seriously by government (they are to an extent, no doubt, but it's not clear to what extent) -- how much of a problem is there here in the obvious biases (age, socio-economic status, etc) of an online signature collection method -- even before things like vote drives from interested parties -- e.g. the Countryside Alliance swamping the annual polls run by the Today programme. Frankly, if I had to make a decision, I'd consider these numbers so suspect as to all but dismiss them. Meanwhile, the fact that they're an easy to use tool for generating negative media coverage (sometimes with little need for factual basis) and very susceptible to manipulation by interested parties would make me consider the online petition facility a noose around my neck. What were they thinking?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 01:45 am (UTC)Scrapping tolls removes one of the few ways of charging the costs of new roads to those who get the benefit (which is a fairer funding mechanism, at least where business is principally driving the demand).
And a good response to an accusation of insincerity would be to point out that governments employ an army of press officers and spin doctors to be insincere on their behalf, so why should those opposing them on the issue do so with one hand tied behind their back. Rouse that rabble! Throw them every argument you think might work. Sign the petition with the most signatures, it generates worse press and makes it more difficult for the government to manoeuvre. Sure you might not agree with all the arguments on the petition yourself, but if you've come to a careful and considered decision it's better a policy be sunk, the care and consideration have done their job. Sinking it (at least through devices like petitions) is about changing perceptions, and you can often do that better on the scale you need by playing a bit fast and loose than by sticking to the principles of your carefully derived argument. Governments are happy enough doing it, because it works better than the alternative; if you want to fight them effectively, should you be happy to do it too?
On a random side note; supposing for the moment that these petitions are taken seriously by government (they are to an extent, no doubt, but it's not clear to what extent) -- how much of a problem is there here in the obvious biases (age, socio-economic status, etc) of an online signature collection method -- even before things like vote drives from interested parties -- e.g. the Countryside Alliance swamping the annual polls run by the Today programme. Frankly, if I had to make a decision, I'd consider these numbers so suspect as to all but dismiss them. Meanwhile, the fact that they're an easy to use tool for generating negative media coverage (sometimes with little need for factual basis) and very susceptible to manipulation by interested parties would make me consider the online petition facility a noose around my neck. What were they thinking?