Why Cameron is brave to propose road tolls

At a time of record petrol prices, the PM has revived a deeply unpopular policy.

The first point to make about David Cameron's plan to "sell off" the roads is that there isn't one. No one is proposing the full-scale privatisation of Britain's motorway system. Rather, the government is examining the possibility of allowing private sector firms to manage parts of the network through a leasing scheme. But while one shouldn't overstate the radicalism, one shouldn't understate it either. The routes up for grabs represent just three per cent of the length of the country's roads, but a third of the traffic and two thirds of the heavy goods vehicle traffic. Cameron seems determined to prove that the imminent departure of Steve Hilton won't limit his capacity for blue sky thinking.

Equally eye-catching is the suggestion that private companies could introduce toll charges on the new routes they manage [existing routes will remain toll-free]. As Cameron will say in his speech on infrastructure this morning, the government, indebted to the tune of nearly £1 trillion, is determined to explore new sources of funding for our national roads. Here's the key section:

Road tolling is one option, but we are only considering this for new, not existing, capacity. For example, we're looking at how improvements to the A14 could be part-funded through tolling.

But we now need to be more ambitious. Why is it that other infrastructure - for example water - is funded by private-sector capital through privately owned, independently regulated utilities, but roads in Britain call on the public finances for funding?

We need to look urgently at the options for getting large-scale private investment into the national roads network - from sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, and other investors. That's why I have asked the Department for Transport and the Treasury to carry out a feasibility study of new ownership and financing models for the national roads system and to report progress to me in the autumn.

That last sentence is worth noting. Many proposals never make it past the Whitehall "feasibility study". But at a time of record petrol prices, the suggestion that more cash could be squeezed out of motorists is striking enough. It was only last week that Cameron told an audience at New York University that our fuel prices would "probably make you faint".

Unsurprisingly, then, Labour is playing its favourite "squeezed middle" riff this morning. Shadow transport secretary Maria Eagle has commented: "Motorists already suffering from record fuel prices now face a road charging free for all, adding to the cost of living crisis facing households up and down the country. Instead of easing the burden on drivers and boosting our stalled economy through a temporary cut in VAT, ministers look set to let private companies take over the strategic road network and charge drivers for access."

Cameron may emphasise that the tolls would not apply to existing routes but to most voters' ears it will sound like yet another tax. All the polling evidence we have suggests that the public are strongly opposed to any form of road pricing. When Tony Blair explored the policy in pre-crash 2007 an ICM poll found that 74 per cent were against road tolls and 1.8m signed a petition against them.

In these straitened times, Cameron's decision to revise this option is both surprising and brave.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Benn vs McDonnell: how Brexit has exposed the fight over Labour's party machine

In the wake of Brexit, should Labour MPs listen more closely to voters, or their own party members?

Two Labour MPs on primetime TV. Two prominent politicians ruling themselves out of a Labour leadership contest. But that was as far as the similarity went.

Hilary Benn was speaking hours after he resigned - or was sacked - from the Shadow Cabinet. He described Jeremy Corbyn as a "good and decent man" but not a leader.

Framing his overnight removal as a matter of conscience, Benn told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "I no longer have confidence in him [Corbyn] and I think the right thing to do would be for him to take that decision."

In Benn's view, diehard leftie pin ups do not go down well in the real world, or on the ballot papers of middle England. 

But while Benn may be drawing on a New Labour truism, this in turn rests on the assumption that voters matter more than the party members when it comes to winning elections.

That assumption was contested moments later by Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

Dismissive of the personal appeal of Shadow Cabinet ministers - "we can replace them" - McDonnell's message was that Labour under Corbyn had rejuvenated its electoral machine.

Pointing to success in by-elections and the London mayoral election, McDonnell warned would-be rebels: "Who is sovereign in our party? The people who are soverign are the party members. 

"I'm saying respect the party members. And in that way we can hold together and win the next election."

Indeed, nearly a year on from Corbyn's surprise election to the Labour leadership, it is worth remembering he captured nearly 60% of the 400,000 votes cast. Momentum, the grassroots organisation formed in the wake of his success, now has more than 50 branches around the country.

Come the next election, it will be these grassroots members who will knock on doors, hand out leaflets and perhaps even threaten to deselect MPs.

The question for wavering Labour MPs will be whether what they trust more - their own connection with voters, or this potentially unbiddable party machine.