Bozza’s Bollo

Boris who?

Well Mayor Boris Johnson got some sound bite headlines as he claimed he was planning to confront President Obama over millions of pounds owed by the US embassy in congestion charges, during his visit to London. But as is so typical with Bozza this turned out to be sound without substance or all “piss and wind” as they say in the parts of the country Bozza is unfamiliar with, like Liverpool.


Boris Hall

Several embassies refuse to pay the charge for driving in central London, claiming they are exempted from local taxes. The total bill stands at £51m. "Maybe when President Obama's hors d'oeuvre plate is whisked away he will find a bill for £5.5m," he said. The US embassy said it considered the charge to be a "direct tax".


Bozza signing a petition against Tube Ticket Office closures

Speaking to Vanessa Feltz the mayor said he may be "shepherded away" from Mr Obama but added: "If I get the chance to I will remind him that the US owes us £5.5m in congestion charge.”I think if they are going to have the representation here in London then they should pay the charge for driving and using our streets.


The Con Charge

So 'No representation without a congestion charge' is the slogan." Several embassies refuse to pay the £10-a-day charge and the £120 fine incurred through not doing so. The charge was £8.00 a day when Boris was elected in 2008 promising not to increase it. But Mr Johnson said: "It is not a tax, it is a charge for services and I think we should test this in the courts. That of course is NOT what Boris said when running for election as on this clip;



The American Embassy says;

"Our position on the direct tax established by Transport for London in 2003, more commonly known as the congestion charge, is based on the 1960 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which prohibits the direct taxation of diplomatic missions."

I once had a Law Lecturer who said the best guide to the Company’s Act was to read it so in the same spirit I actually read Article 23 of the Vienna Convention;

Article 23

1. The sending State and the head of the mission shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission, whether owned or leased, other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered.

2. The exemption from taxation referred to in this article shall not apply to such dues and taxes payable under the law of the receiving State by persons contracting with the sending State or the head of the mission.

Seems plain enough to me but unlike Bozza I’m not an Oxford educated Classics Scholar – maybe our fearless Mayor, that scourge of burglars, Greeks, piccaninnies, Scousers and embassies would understand it better if it was in Latin?


Boris who?

So file this one away along with all the other Bozza Bollo entries like I’m going to get a strike free deal on the Tube, I’ll introduce the Bicycle scheme at zero cost to Council Tax payers (£43 million and rising), I’ll get rid of Bendy Buses ditto and I won’t increase fares above inflation. Yeah, yeah, yeah!

Bozza’s Bollo

Boris who?

Well Mayor Boris Johnson got some sound bite headlines as he claimed he was planning to confront President Obama over millions of pounds owed by the US embassy in congestion charges, during his visit to London. But as is so typical with Bozza this turned out to be sound without substance or all “piss and wind” as they say in the parts of the country Bozza is unfamiliar with, like Liverpool.


Boris Hall

Several embassies refuse to pay the charge for driving in central London, claiming they are exempted from local taxes. The total bill stands at £51m. "Maybe when President Obama's hors d'oeuvre plate is whisked away he will find a bill for £5.5m," he said. The US embassy said it considered the charge to be a "direct tax".


Bozza signing a petition against Tube Ticket Office closures

Speaking to Vanessa Feltz the mayor said he may be "shepherded away" from Mr Obama but added: "If I get the chance to I will remind him that the US owes us £5.5m in congestion charge.”I think if they are going to have the representation here in London then they should pay the charge for driving and using our streets.


The Con Charge

So 'No representation without a congestion charge' is the slogan." Several embassies refuse to pay the £10-a-day charge and the £120 fine incurred through not doing so. The charge was £8.00 a day when Boris was elected in 2008 promising not to increase it. But Mr Johnson said: "It is not a tax, it is a charge for services and I think we should test this in the courts. That of course is NOT what Boris said when running for election as on this clip;



The American Embassy says;

"Our position on the direct tax established by Transport for London in 2003, more commonly known as the congestion charge, is based on the 1960 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which prohibits the direct taxation of diplomatic missions."

I once had a Law Lecturer who said the best guide to the Company’s Act was to read it so in the same spirit I actually read Article 23 of the Vienna Convention;

Article 23

1. The sending State and the head of the mission shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission, whether owned or leased, other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered.

2. The exemption from taxation referred to in this article shall not apply to such dues and taxes payable under the law of the receiving State by persons contracting with the sending State or the head of the mission.

Seems plain enough to me but unlike Bozza I’m not an Oxford educated Classics Scholar – maybe our fearless Mayor, that scourge of burglars, Greeks, piccaninnies, Scousers and embassies would understand it better if it was in Latin?


Boris who?

So file this one away along with all the other Bozza Bollo entries like I’m going to get a strike free deal on the Tube, I’ll introduce the Bicycle scheme at zero cost to Council Tax payers (£43 million and rising), I’ll get rid of Bendy Buses ditto and I won’t increase fares above inflation. Yeah, yeah, yeah!

Long, Long Ago (OK, It was only this time last year!)

Boris Johnson has vowed that his first act as Mayor of London will be to scrap bendy buses and replace them with a modern-day Routemaster. Mr Johnson said that the controversial buses were abused by fare dodgers and highly dangerous to cyclists.

Speaking at the first Tory candidates hustings meeting, the MP for Henley said that he would introduce a new version of the Routemaster bus that had been axed by Ken Livingstone. Their replacement would be fully accessible for the disabled and mothers with buggies. He said: "We should on day one, act one, scene one, hold a competition to get rid of the bendy bus. They wipe out cyclists, there are many cyclists killed every year by them.

"It's not beyond the wit of man to design a new Routemaster which will stand as an icon of this city."

Mr Johnson also said that he would stand up for the "many" in London who depended on their car and vowed to spend more of the congestion charge on repairing roads, particularly outside the centre of the city. Just £10 million of the nearly £1 billion raised by the congestion charge had gone on improving roads, he said. In a question and answer session in Westminster last night, the Tory front-runner also called for all ethnic minority communities in London to have a "good command of English".

He said: "It's tragic that there are people in the second and third generations who still don't speak English. "If you don't speak English, you cannot take part in the economy and that's one of the reasons those communities are doing badly."

EVENING STANDARD, London, 12 September 2007.



Not the New Routemaster

Long, Long Ago (OK, It was only this time last year!)

Boris Johnson has vowed that his first act as Mayor of London will be to scrap bendy buses and replace them with a modern-day Routemaster. Mr Johnson said that the controversial buses were abused by fare dodgers and highly dangerous to cyclists.

Speaking at the first Tory candidates hustings meeting, the MP for Henley said that he would introduce a new version of the Routemaster bus that had been axed by Ken Livingstone. Their replacement would be fully accessible for the disabled and mothers with buggies. He said: "We should on day one, act one, scene one, hold a competition to get rid of the bendy bus. They wipe out cyclists, there are many cyclists killed every year by them.

"It's not beyond the wit of man to design a new Routemaster which will stand as an icon of this city."

Mr Johnson also said that he would stand up for the "many" in London who depended on their car and vowed to spend more of the congestion charge on repairing roads, particularly outside the centre of the city. Just £10 million of the nearly £1 billion raised by the congestion charge had gone on improving roads, he said. In a question and answer session in Westminster last night, the Tory front-runner also called for all ethnic minority communities in London to have a "good command of English".

He said: "It's tragic that there are people in the second and third generations who still don't speak English. "If you don't speak English, you cannot take part in the economy and that's one of the reasons those communities are doing badly."

EVENING STANDARD, London, 12 September 2007.



Not the New Routemaster

London Congestion Charge

Still Cruising Very Slowly Buses backed up in London traffic

The city's roads are as clogged as ever after five years of former mayor "Red Ken" Livingstone's congestion charge. London is still just as congested as it was before the introduction of the congestion charge according to a new survey, but not just because of traffic volume. The blame is now on road-works and measures to give priority to pedestrians, buses and cyclists.

Transport for London, which runs the city's transport system, said traffic volume had shrunk significantly since the charge was introduced in January 2003. About 70 000 fewer cars entered the charge zone every day than in 2003, a drop of 21 percent, but traffic still crawled because of phased traffic lights, pedestrian measures and road-works “The charge has cut traffic but hasn't solved the problem”.

London's new mayor, Boris Johnson, said: "I've always thought the congestion charge was a blunt instrument. It's cut traffic coming into London but hasn't solved the congestion." All road users, with a few exceptions such as taxis and motorcycles, must pay £8 to drive through central London but the charge has always been controversial with businesses citing lost trade.

The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry called for a review of the charge in light of the report, saying drivers were paying for no benefit. A spokesman said: "The congestion charge has increased costs and driven away trade from many firms. They will now be asking - with good reason - why their businesses are suffering."

London congestion map

What has happened to congestion in Central London has contradicted TfL’s assertions when the Congestion Charge Zone was extended Westwards on the 19th February 2007. According to TfL then, traffic in the original central congestion charge zone had fallen 20% since the scheme began in 2003 and it expected a further fall of 15% when the new charge kicked in. It also said the toll has helped fight pollution, reduce road injuries, increased the number of cyclists and caused more people to turn to public transport.

Part of the reason for increased congestion stems from the westward expansion of the Zone in 2007 as it had the effect of increasing greatly the number of residents cars which get a 90% discount on the Congestion Charge. Whereas there were not many cars in the original zone (a combination of lack of residential use and parking spaces in Central London) West London is very much a family area with high car ownership levels and as these owners have to pay the charge anyway they will use the opportunity to drive in the central area.


So this is the conundrum. If a “Congestion Charge” has not actually reduced congestion is it not then just another tax on motoring? This is certainly the view of the United States Government as the US Embassy in London now “owes” £1.5 m (that is $3.0 million) in unpaid congestion charges and fines, making the USA by far the worst offender in terms of unpaid charges and penalties. Since the US government unilaterally decided to stop paying the congestion charge in July 2005 their debts have rapidly risen. The US claimed that it did not have to pay the congestion charge because they claimed it was a tax from which diplomats are exempt.

There is the further point that very little of the “Congestion Charge” is actually going towards improving transport. The costs of the scheme eat up over 70% of the revenue (which includes a disproportionate element of penalties) on paying Capita and running the infrastructure for the charge – and that is before TfL’s own overhead is taken into account. This is a very poor way to raise money (although not for Capita). If it wasn’t for the large number of fines, the Congestion Charge would be something unique - a tax that loses money. The cost to London and Londoners is over a £1.1 billion. It was £930 million up to the end of March 2007, the annual run rate is about £250 million a year.By law all profits from the congestion charge have to be put into public transport projects. According to one set of TfL accounts, it reinvested just £280m since 2003. This omits the £265 million set up costs of the original scheme and the Western Extension. So that leaves a net benefit of about £15 million. So by any estimate the cost of the charge to the London economy has been hugely disproportionate even to the claimed benefit, let alone to the actual benefits. Here is the Audit Commision's take on the numbers.




So zero effect on congestion and very little contribution towards transport. So where does that leave the rest of us? Are we paying a Congestion Charge or merely an additional tax on motoring in the congested centre of London?

London Congestion Charge

Still Cruising Very Slowly Buses backed up in London traffic

The city's roads are as clogged as ever after five years of former mayor "Red Ken" Livingstone's congestion charge. London is still just as congested as it was before the introduction of the congestion charge according to a new survey, but not just because of traffic volume. The blame is now on road-works and measures to give priority to pedestrians, buses and cyclists.

Transport for London, which runs the city's transport system, said traffic volume had shrunk significantly since the charge was introduced in January 2003. About 70 000 fewer cars entered the charge zone every day than in 2003, a drop of 21 percent, but traffic still crawled because of phased traffic lights, pedestrian measures and road-works “The charge has cut traffic but hasn't solved the problem”.

London's new mayor, Boris Johnson, said: "I've always thought the congestion charge was a blunt instrument. It's cut traffic coming into London but hasn't solved the congestion." All road users, with a few exceptions such as taxis and motorcycles, must pay £8 to drive through central London but the charge has always been controversial with businesses citing lost trade.

The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry called for a review of the charge in light of the report, saying drivers were paying for no benefit. A spokesman said: "The congestion charge has increased costs and driven away trade from many firms. They will now be asking - with good reason - why their businesses are suffering."

London congestion map

What has happened to congestion in Central London has contradicted TfL’s assertions when the Congestion Charge Zone was extended Westwards on the 19th February 2007. According to TfL then, traffic in the original central congestion charge zone had fallen 20% since the scheme began in 2003 and it expected a further fall of 15% when the new charge kicked in. It also said the toll has helped fight pollution, reduce road injuries, increased the number of cyclists and caused more people to turn to public transport.

Part of the reason for increased congestion stems from the westward expansion of the Zone in 2007 as it had the effect of increasing greatly the number of residents cars which get a 90% discount on the Congestion Charge. Whereas there were not many cars in the original zone (a combination of lack of residential use and parking spaces in Central London) West London is very much a family area with high car ownership levels and as these owners have to pay the charge anyway they will use the opportunity to drive in the central area.


So this is the conundrum. If a “Congestion Charge” has not actually reduced congestion is it not then just another tax on motoring? This is certainly the view of the United States Government as the US Embassy in London now “owes” £1.5 m (that is $3.0 million) in unpaid congestion charges and fines, making the USA by far the worst offender in terms of unpaid charges and penalties. Since the US government unilaterally decided to stop paying the congestion charge in July 2005 their debts have rapidly risen. The US claimed that it did not have to pay the congestion charge because they claimed it was a tax from which diplomats are exempt.

There is the further point that very little of the “Congestion Charge” is actually going towards improving transport. The costs of the scheme eat up over 70% of the revenue (which includes a disproportionate element of penalties) on paying Capita and running the infrastructure for the charge – and that is before TfL’s own overhead is taken into account. This is a very poor way to raise money (although not for Capita). If it wasn’t for the large number of fines, the Congestion Charge would be something unique - a tax that loses money. The cost to London and Londoners is over a £1.1 billion. It was £930 million up to the end of March 2007, the annual run rate is about £250 million a year.By law all profits from the congestion charge have to be put into public transport projects. According to one set of TfL accounts, it reinvested just £280m since 2003. This omits the £265 million set up costs of the original scheme and the Western Extension. So that leaves a net benefit of about £15 million. So by any estimate the cost of the charge to the London economy has been hugely disproportionate even to the claimed benefit, let alone to the actual benefits. Here is the Audit Commision's take on the numbers.




So zero effect on congestion and very little contribution towards transport. So where does that leave the rest of us? Are we paying a Congestion Charge or merely an additional tax on motoring in the congested centre of London?