Interviewed by the Miami Herald

Having arrived in Florida last night I had the rather bizarre experience of being called this morning by the UK Correspondent of the Miami Herald asking me about the chips in bins issue.

She is writing a piece about the strange contradiction in Britons' attitudes to surveillance in public places and our ambivalence to any intrusion in to our homes. She wanted to use the reaction in Bournemouth to the insertion of the chips in our new 'little' bins to illustrate this.

I explained my point of view, which is that we are happy that we are watched over whilst in public because we rest assured in the (largely mistaken) belief that it brings help or intervention closer to us if we run in to trouble. However, there persists a very strong sense of 'an Englishman's home being his castle' and to this extent any intrusion by the government across that imaginary moat we place around our dwellings is greatly resented and swiftly rebuffed.

I also explained that I felt that most Britons perceive their car to be an extension of this home.

This therefore explains our acceptance of the widest degree of CCTV surveillance anywhere in the world, (and our clamour for even more to be introduced); our strong ambivalence towards micro chips in waste bins and the proposal that cars should carry tracking devices to enable road pricing; and our suspicion about the introduction of ID Cards.

The reporter listened very carefully and then kindly asked whether I had read a book called 'Watching the English' by Kate Fox. I said truthfully that I hadn't. Apparently the views I expressed about our national characteristics are almost identical to those espoused by Ms Fox in her book.

I think there is an important message here, that being that interference by Government (at any level) in our lives is of increasing concern to Britons. I believe it is going to be a huge issue in the coming years, one which will begin to differentiate the parties as clearly as the economic and defence arguments of the 1970's and 80's.

Road pricing - Good or bad news?

The Government has commissioned a report about the feasibility of road pricing which is due to be published today.

Speculation is that the report, written by the former head of British Airways, Sir Rod Eddington, will recommend a considerable extension of road pricing. You can read the full BBC report on the issue here.

Apparently his recommendation is a considerable increase in road pricing schemes, essentially schemes whereby you would be charged to drive on certain roads, the cost being dependent upon the mileage covered and the time of day travelled.

It's suggested this would raise some £28 billion which could then be spent on public transport schemes including a new high speed link between Scotland and London and the expansion of key airports.

There are a number of points about these proposals, if the speculation is correct, that bother me greatly.

Firstly, much of the congestion on the roads occurs in the South and the Midlands and in particular in and around our major employment centres. Government policy is already pushing the expansion of these towns and cities through housebuilding and planning guidelines. Wouldn't any money raised be better spent on improving public transport links in, out and around these locations?

Secondly, why an expansion of airports? One week we are being told that cheap air travel is environmentally harmful and should be curtailed through higher taxation either of air travellers or removal of the lower rate of tax on aircraft fuel enjoyed by airlines. Again, the congestion comes at a local level, regional or international air travel won't remove this. I've yet to travel to or from an airport which doesn't appear to attract an increased amount of road traffic in relation to its surrounding.

Finally, I fundamentally have a problem with the principle of furthering taxation (for this is what road pricing would be) without the removal of tax burdens elsewhere. Too often it appears that we're told the only way to change our behaviour is to levy a financial charge. Under this government that's been a cover for just increasing the tax burden by stealth.

George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, recently spoke of introducing taxation to encourage businesses to reduce their carbon emissions. He pledged to use this income to reduce the tax burden on business elsewhere however. That's a principle I'd like us to follow in this case too.