When politicians are trying to influence behaviours, there are two broad approaches available to them: the carrot and the stick.

Labour's Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has opted for the stick with his expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone to outer London. The idea is simple: if you make it financially prohibitive for people to use their non-ULEZ compliant car, they will choose to either purchase a compliant vehicle or to take an alternative form of transport, delivering those positive externalities that the policy is designed to encourage.

Putting together policy in an office in central London, there might be a certain logic in that. And certainly, sometimes the stick can be effective.

That's why, for example, policy-makers might increase penalties for fly-tipping, or other convenience-based social ills. But ULEZ is an inherently punitive policy, because the sunk costs involved in exchanging your non-compliant car for a compliant one leave the "good" behavioural decision out of reach for many of the most disadvantaged – the people most hit by additional costs – and for lots of small businesses and trades who cannot operate without a vehicle.

For those who lack an alternative way to achieve your broad policy goal, they face a choice only of which stick to be hit with. That's not good policy. And in London, that bad policy has been cemented by Mayor Khan's determination to also make it more expensive to make a better travel choice environmentally, with his decision to get rid of day travelcards for passengers from outside the capital.

Making it harder – or more expensive – for people to do simple things not only has an impact on them, but also on wider society.

For ULEZ, that could be from reduced footfall into London, as shoppers from outside choose to stay away, harming London's economy. That could be from reduced choice of tradespeople, as those from outside the capital have to turn down jobs or raise their prices to get by – increasing the cost of living pressures on ordinary people.

Now ULEZ is a relevant recent example of this, but closer to home in Hitchin, we also see the impact of poor policy uses of the stick, rather than the carrot. The Labour/Liberal Democrat Administration on North Herts Council has committed to annual parking charge increases each year – not to increase their income, but (in their own words) "to encourage alternative forms of transport". Given that, when these were last reviewed, parking levels hadn't returned to pre-Covid levels, it is clear that this policy has had its desired effect of making people less likely to drive into our towns.

But encouraging alternative forms of transport also requires positive actions – to make it easier and quicker for people to use those alternative forms. Otherwise, what you are left with is a policy that dissuades people from coming into our towns, makes it harder and more expensive for them to spend money in local businesses (reducing the vitality of our High Streets) and hurts those people who cannot make the "better" decision you want them to.

As a politician, I tend to prefer the carrot to the stick. Encouraging people to change their behaviours – not by making it overly burdensome or expensive for them to do the thing you're trying to discourage, but by making it much easier and cheaper to do the thing you'd like.

HITCHIN CAR PARKING CHARGES

Parking charges in Hitchin are due to come to Cabinet at North Herts later this month and I'd like to see Labour shake off the instincts of their colleagues in London and opt not to hit people with the stick of punitive parking charge hikes, but to support our businesses and town centre by reducing parking charges – making it easier for everyone to shop in Hitchin – and to be more ambitious with its carrots, creating real, long-term solutions to make it easier for people to get around our area.