Comments for MayorWatch

Comment on Why Thames Estuary airport opponents want Boris Johnson to drop ‘pie in the sky’ plan by Richard Eastcliff

Richard Eastcliff — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:11:02 +0000

Wrong. Manston does not have ‘one of the longest runways in Europe’. It has the 14th longest runway in the UK. And there are 40,000 people and 950 listed buildings under the flight path. So please do not push your problems with Boris onto us!

Comment on Disposal of unwanted phone directories ‘costs taxpayers £7.5m a year’ by brian

brian — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:46:17 +0000

I think people are a bit premature to write off the printed directories just yet. While i do agree these should eventually wind down they do help generate millions for the British economy each year & help support the countries SME businesses

Comment on Johnson: ‘Embassies should fulfil c-charge obligations’ by Gabriel Roth

Gabriel Roth — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:18:25 +0000

Damian -

Please excuse the delay in commenting on your interesting comments.

The British Treasury defined a “tax” in the 1993 “System of National Accounts” as follows:

“7.48 Taxes are compulsory, unrequited payments, in cash or in kind … They are described as ‘unrequited’ because the government provides nothing in return to the individual unit making the payment, although governments may use the funds raised in taxes to provide goods or services to other units, either individually or collectively, or to the community as a whole”.

Why is this important issue not settled in the courts? The fact that the London authorities have not sued suggests that they are dubious about the merits of their case. Or have they sued?

I am no lawyer, but think a case can be made that the original £5 charge was a fee, because those who paid it got in return some relief from congestion. But I am not sure whether the same can be said of the subsequent increase by £3 to £8.

If the roads were commercially operated (as I have argued that they should be, in my 1996 book “Roads in a Market Economy”) could there be any doubt that the charge could be a “fee” and not a “tax”?

–

Comment on A veneer of oversight by Damian Hockney

Damian Hockney — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:44:01 +0000

The Government established the GLA in such a way that it itself was the only meaningful oversight of the London Mayor. Hence recent comments by Lord Adonis and others about tearing up the rules of supposedly devolved government if the London Mayor doesn’t do what is demanded of him. When the review of GLA powers occurred a few years ago, what struck me and my colleagues on the One London team was that the only real change was to take away any possibility that the London Assembly or statutory bodies like the MPA and LFEPA could actually act in any way as a genuine scrutiny body: the powers that be clearly identified the flashpoints of potential independence after just over half a decade of the GLA, and acted to squash them (while talking about ‘greater powers’). We pointed out in our submissions that these ‘confirmation hearings’ were a meaningless charade, like most of the other recommendations. Politicians of the old parties are keen to draw a veil over this, but it is a good thing that others are beginning to understand.

Comment on London LibDems: C-charge dodging Embassies owe every Londoner £5 by Damian Hockney

Damian Hockney — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:24:22 +0000

But Mark, where in this report from the LibDems is a section headed “advice from tax lawyers/experts”? The sources used to quote that it is not a tax rely upon a Times article(!), Jack Straw for HMG a few years ago in a view which was weasel worded (it says that the government thinks it is not a tax but gives no advice source!) and the OECD stance is based upon the untested and flawed logic of the claims of both Mayor and TfL regarding the use of the funds raised. The OECD advice is broad and not specific and has has been given on the assumption that what everyone says will stand up to scrutiny. It most certainly will not. It is on the basis of scrutiny of these claims that the EU and US tax experts challenged the definition. No wonder no-one wants to ask them to let TfL have that advice…because it proves that, in this context, the C-Charge (sadly for them) is a tax. I advised the Mayor four years ago that the price rise of 60% was the clincher argument for those who claimed the C-Charge was a tax. As indeed it proved to be. You cannot just add 60% to a tax in this context without also specifying clearly why and for what purpose the extra revenue will go. I advised this before the EU meeting and I advised the Standard also at the time before the EU meeting that the EU would make this definition. Sorry but the definition of taxation is the bane of the lives of many and not just a matter of a government saying ‘it’s not a tax because we say so’.

Comment on Johnson opens ‘eco-friendly’ fire station by Neil

Neil — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:57:05 +0000

I believe there was a protest by the Fire Brigade Union at this opening; what did the Mayor make of this?

Comment on London LibDems: C-charge dodging Embassies owe every Londoner £5 by Mark

Mark — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:21:08 +0000

The claim that the Congestion Charge is supposedly a tax is directly challenged in the report by Caroline Pidgeon, the Libeal Democrat London Assembly Transport spokesperson.

The report can be seen in the reports and briefings section of the group’s website at http://www.glalibdems.org.uk – the specific link is:

http://www.gla.libdems.org.uk/resources/sites/217.160.173.25-3e54d44dcb2780.65885247/Time+to+pay+up+-+why+all+embassies+must+pay+the+Congestion+Charge.pdf

Comment on London Assembly publish report into Oxford Street congestion by Liam

Liam — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:26:42 +0000

This is typical Tory thinking – get rid of those ugly buses (even though the take millions of passengers a year).

What about cars and taxis, who are far less efficient (nothing, of course, as that is the method of choice for Victoria’s and Boris’ friends and key voters).

Comment on London LibDems: C-charge dodging Embassies owe every Londoner £5 by Damian Hockney

Damian Hockney — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:29:53 +0000

Some of you will have seen my posts on this, practically every time it comes up. The main issue is, without doubt, the issue of taxation and I have argued for four years that it is a tax and given clear reasons. Those who say it is not a tax, give no reasons for their stance and talk about having “advice” that proves their case. They never publish it, or say where they have it from. Above all, I have always challenged those who say they have “advice” to publish the advice. Tax lawyers for the USA and the EU have made clear it IS a tax. The Russian Ambassador has offered the same advice and been possibly the most helpful of all. These offers are neither acknowledged not acted upon by any of those who claim it is not a tax. By and large they want to use the matter as a political football. Can I make a suggestion? We can go round and round like this forever. Can the two parties simply agree that legal advice on both sides should be published?

Comment on City of London consults on St Paul’s improvements by Tim

Tim — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:43:15 +0000

Getting rid of that coach park and making the area into a green space can’t come fast enough. Why it was kept there that long is beyond me.
Plus there are few green spaces in the city, so another one would be welcome.