Part 1 · Essay

Traffic congestion is one of the most persistent problems facing modern cities. It wastes time, pollutes the air and makes urban centres less pleasant places to live and work. Of the various solutions that have been proposed, improving public transport and charging drivers to enter the centre are perhaps the most widely discussed.

A congestion charge has proved remarkably effective in some cities, where the number of vehicles entering the centre fell sharply once drivers had to pay. The money collected can also be reinvested in roads or public services. On the other hand, a charge on its own is a blunt instrument. If there is no convenient way of getting to work without a car, drivers will simply pay and continue to sit in traffic, and those who cannot afford the fee may be excluded from the city altogether.

Improving public transport tackles the problem from the opposite direction: rather than punishing drivers, it gives them a genuine reason to change. Frequent, reliable and affordable buses and trains make leaving the car at home a rational decision rather than a sacrifice. The drawback is cost, since new tram lines or metro extensions require enormous investment and take years to complete.

In my view, better public transport is the more effective solution, not least because it is the precondition for any other measure to work. A congestion charge may well be a useful addition, but only once people have a realistic alternative. Without that, it merely shifts the burden onto those who have no choice.

Governments across the world face rising rates of obesity and related illnesses, and many are searching for ways to persuade citizens to adopt healthier habits. Two approaches that are frequently proposed are taxing unhealthy food and teaching good habits at school.

A tax on sugary drinks or fast food has the obvious advantage of producing results quickly. When a product becomes more expensive, people generally buy less of it, and the revenue raised can be spent on healthcare. However, such taxes are, by their nature, regressive. Wealthier consumers barely notice a few extra pence, whereas families on tight budgets may find that the cheapest way to fill their children's stomachs has simply become more expensive. There is a real risk, therefore, that the policy punishes people rather than helping them.

Education in schools, by contrast, works slowly, but its effects are likely to be far more durable. Children who learn to cook simple meals, understand food labels and see exercise as a normal part of daily life are far more likely to carry those habits into adulthood. Admittedly, lessons alone cannot counteract the influence of advertising or of an unhealthy home environment. Nevertheless, they give young people the knowledge to make informed choices rather than merely reacting to prices.

On balance, I believe that education is the more effective of the two methods. Taxes may change what people buy in the short term, but only education can change the way they think about food and exercise, and it is that change which will ultimately produce a healthier population.

In an age when young people in different countries listen to the same music and watch the same series, many communities fear that their own customs are disappearing. The question is how such traditions can best be kept alive, and two possible approaches are public funding and promotion to tourists.

Government funding can make an immediate difference. Many traditional crafts and festivals are expensive to maintain, and without financial support the few remaining practitioners may be forced to give up. Grants can pay for workshops, apprenticeships and the costs of staging events. Yet money alone cannot create enthusiasm. A festival that survives only because of a subsidy risks becoming an empty ritual, attended out of duty rather than affection, and it may collapse as soon as the funding is withdrawn.

Promoting traditions to tourists, on the other hand, creates an income that does not depend on political decisions. Visitors who pay to watch a folk dance or buy a hand-woven rug give local people a practical reason to maintain their skills. The danger, however, is that the tradition is reshaped to suit outsiders' expectations: performances are shortened, costumes made more colourful and meanings simplified until little of the original remains.

Weighing up these arguments, I would argue that government funding is more likely to succeed, provided it is used to support the communities themselves rather than to stage shows. Tourism may bring in money, but it tends to change the very thing it claims to celebrate, whereas well-targeted funding allows local people to decide how their traditions should evolve.