Well, I didn't expect that

[Hibbyradge]

I only heard part of Gideon's statement, but what I did hear sounded positive for the Tories.

It was more like a pre-General Election give away rather than an early parliament autumn statement.

[Moulin Yarns]

I only heard part of Gideon's statement, but what I did hear sounded positive for the Tories.

It was more like a pre-General Election give away rather than an early parliament autumn statement.

It was always going to be positive for the Tories, but how was it for the rest of the country? :wink:

[Geo_1875]

I only heard part of Gideon's statement, but what I did hear sounded positive for the Tories.

It was more like a pre-General Election give away rather than an early parliament autumn statement.

80,000 public service jobs to go. Nurse training to be funded by loan rather than grant. Sounds great.

[Moulin Yarns]

80,000 public service jobs to go.

I would volunteer but I was turned down for voluntary Severance this year already.

[lucky]

As always with the statement it's not what he says it's what actually contain in it. Huge cuts across every department will not be easy reading once the full details are known. Good news on tax credits but I suspect it's just a stay of execution until the universal tax credit is introduced in 2020

[Pete]

Allow me to Corbynise it.

"Shambolic, hypocritical tories U-turn on tax credits demonstrates weak leadership".

[Geo_1875]

I would volunteer but I was turned down for voluntary Severance this year already.

Maybe they don't realise you work there.

[RyeSloan]

As always with the statement it's not what he says it's what actually contain in it. Huge cuts across every department will not be easy reading once the full details are known. Good news on tax credits but I suspect it's just a stay of execution until the universal tax credit is introduced in 2020

UC is already here but I believe it will capture most people impacted by the proposed tax credit cuts in 2018...I suppose in some way Gideon has mitigated the impact of the cuts by pushing it into UC when the national minimum wage is substantially higher. Not sure of the numbers or how it will work out but on the face of it that seems a reasonable approach...cut welfare by encouraging higher wages and try and co-ordinate the two.

Sure the IFS will be busy crunching the numbers as we speak..

As for the rest of it, not had time to see the detail but government spending will continue to rise in absolute terms but the deficit and borrowing fall compared to national income...again seems a reasonably sensible approach to me but as I said not seen the detail yet so will reserve judgement.

[heretoday]

He has announced a new crackdown on tax evasion. How can he do that while he cuts the staff at tax offices?

[ronaldo7]

I only heard part of Gideon's statement, but what I did hear sounded positive for the Tories.

It was more like a pre-General Election give away rather than an early parliament autumn statement.

Oh aye, we're all chippin in with a 7% rise, up to £48mill a year tae queenie, whilst student nurses have to pay for their training.

[Sylar]

I was in Parliament today (been here all week with the Royal Society on a science-minister shadowing exchange) and it was a genuine pleasure to be in the main chamber (not the public gallery) whilst it was all unfolding.

The budget sounded positive but the devil will be in the detail once everything is published. What I will say is that the "opposition" response was laughable and John McDonnell made a total cock of himself. Quoting Mao in the Commons and launching his communist manifesto across the dispatch was totally unparliamentary.

[Hibbyradge]

I was in Parliament today (been here all week with the Royal Society on a science-minister shadowing exchange) and it was a genuine pleasure to be in the main chamber (not the public gallery) whilst it was all unfolding.

The budget sounded positive but the devil will be in the detail once everything is published. What I will say is that the "opposition" response was laughable and John McDonnell made a total cock of himself. Quoting Mao in the Commons and launching his communist manifesto across the dispatch was totally unparliamentary.

Mcdonnell was embarrassing.

If people thought Ed Balls was out of his depth...

[RyeSloan]

Mcdonnell was embarrassing. If people thought Ed Balls was out of his depth...

Shhh dinnae tell 'bollah that's what you thought of McDonnell ;-)

[Colr]

80,000 public service jobs to go. Nurse training to be funded by loan rather than grant. Sounds great.

He is also following the SNP lead and decimating Further Education. So much for social mobility.

[Mibbes Aye]

Mcdonnell was embarrassing.

If people thought Ed Balls was out of his depth...

I think the most embarrassing thing was what the statement said about how Osborne and Cameron view women.

There's been a campaign and petition to bring about an end to VAT on female sanitary products as it is ludicrous to classify them as 'luxury' items. I think the petition has over 300,000 signatures. There's a suggestion the rules are bound up in European legislation but it seems like this is an excuse for inaction rather than trying to do something about it.

What was embarrassing and insulting about the statement was that Osborne offered nothing about the VAT other than to say they would allocate the sum raised in tax to charities that support women fleeing domestic violence.

There's no guarantee that this is additional money, the expectation is that this will replace money previously coming from government.

Which means you have women paying tax on essential products, to fund essential services, that are only necessary because of what is pretty much exclusively male violence.

I read a comment in another place that said that such funding should come out of alcohol taxation, given the unambiguous links between alcohol and domestic violence. That sounds reasonable. When the OF met on a regular basis, the then Strathclyde Police used to issue regular accounts of the spike in alcohol-fuelled domestic violence, driven by the result of the Glasgow derby.

There's a barely-hidden contempt within this government for groups of its people. Sadly, in this regard it seems to extend to a majority of its population.

[Sylar]

I think the most embarrassing thing was what the statement said about how Osborne and Cameron view women.

There's been a campaign and petition to bring about an end to VAT on female sanitary products as it is ludicrous to classify them as 'luxury' items. I think the petition has over 300,000 signatures. There's a suggestion the rules are bound up in European legislation but it seems like this is an excuse for inaction rather than trying to do something about it.

What was embarrassing and insulting about the statement was that Osborne offered nothing about the VAT other than to say they would allocate the sum raised in tax to charities that support women fleeing domestic violence.

There's no guarantee that this is additional money, the expectation is that this will replace money previously coming from government.

Which means you have women paying tax on essential products, to fund essential services, that are only necessary because of what is pretty much exclusively male violence.

I read a comment in another place that said that such funding should come out of alcohol taxation, given the unambiguous links between alcohol and domestic violence. That sounds reasonable. When the OF met on a regular basis, the then Strathclyde Police used to issue regular accounts of the spike in alcohol-fuelled domestic violence, driven by the result of the Glasgow derby.

There's a barely-hidden contempt within this government for groups of its people. Sadly, in this regard it seems to extend to a majority of its population.

Not an excuse in the slightest - it IS an EU issue and the UK government can't do anything about it other than lobby the EU to reduce it.

I think offering to use the monies raised to go toward charities for women's health, domestic abuse and rape victims seems sensible and the £15 million is well in excess of current funding levels.

I just hope they continue to fund such services independently as and when they negotiate a removal of such an absurd tax in the first place.

[Mibbes Aye]

Not an excuse in the slightest - it IS an EU issue and the UK government can't do anything about it other than lobby the EU to reduce it.

I think offering to use the monies raised to go toward charities for women's health, domestic abuse and rape victims seems sensible and the £15 million is well in excess of current funding levels.

I just hope they continue to fund such services independently as and when they negotiate a removal of such an absurd tax in the first place.

The UK could do something about it, Osborne has been happy to keep tax credits, which are basically about taxing people then returning money where appropriate. It's not exactly rocket science.

And in terms of changing EU policy, are they lobbying, and are they lobbying as a priority? Where's the evidence?

And perhaps more importantly, where's the evidence this £15m will be in addition to existing funding, as opposed to replacing it?

The point is, you're funding how we deal with domestic abuse by taxing women only, the almost-exclusive victims.

[Hibbyradge]

I think the most embarrassing thing was what the statement said about how Osborne and Cameron view women.

There's been a campaign and petition to bring about an end to VAT on female sanitary products as it is ludicrous to classify them as 'luxury' items. I think the petition has over 300,000 signatures. There's a suggestion the rules are bound up in European legislation but it seems like this is an excuse for inaction rather than trying to do something about it.

What was embarrassing and insulting about the statement was that Osborne offered nothing about the VAT other than to say they would allocate the sum raised in tax to charities that support women fleeing domestic violence.

There's no guarantee that this is additional money, the expectation is that this will replace money previously coming from government.

Which means you have women paying tax on essential products, to fund essential services, that are only necessary because of what is pretty much exclusively male violence.

I read a comment in another place that said that such funding should come out of alcohol taxation, given the unambiguous links between alcohol and domestic violence. That sounds reasonable. When the OF met on a regular basis, the then Strathclyde Police used to issue regular accounts of the spike in alcohol-fuelled domestic violence, driven by the result of the Glasgow derby.

There's a barely-hidden contempt within this government for groups of its people. Sadly, in this regard it seems to extend to a majority of its population.

I get that, and I agree.

But, that's the Tories.

McDonnell's stunt was cringeworthy, and it seems he agrees.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/25/little-red-book-moment-cut-from-mcdonnells-youtube-channel

[Mibbes Aye]

I get that, and I agree.

But, that's the Tories.

McDonnell's stunt was cringeworthy, and it seems he agrees.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/25/little-red-book-moment-cut-from-mcdonnells-youtube-channel

I saw that.

In the grand scheme of things weigh them up and decide what we as a society think is more important though.

One middle-aged man throwing a pamphlet at another (younger) middle-aged man, on television

or

Whether women should be taxed to stop men assaulting them

:dunno:

[Hibbyradge]

I saw that.

In the grand scheme of things weigh them up and decide what we as a society think is more important though.

One middle-aged man throwing a pamphlet at another (younger) middle-aged man, on television

or

Whether women should be taxed to stop men assaulting them

:dunno:

Is that a straw man argument I see before me? :wink:

Had the shadow chancellor concentrated his efforts attacking the Tory's policies, I would have had no complaints, whether or not the EU are responsible for the tampon tax. But instead, he made an erse of himself and the Labour Party.

You've probably seen this Guardian article too, but it puts it very well, "He could have wondered why the Tory bar was now so low that Osborne had got the biggest cheer for doing nothing - by not cutting police funding." ...but he didn't.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/25/john-mcdonnell-mao-zedong-little-red-book-commons-spending-review

[Mibbes Aye]

Is that a straw man argument I see before me? :wink:

No.

It's as I said in my post. We can all make our own judgements about what's most important.

People can go with the headline-friendly 'Little Red Book' story if they want. Or the police funding non-story. But the level of cheers from the likes of Philip Davies et al isn't going to be my barometer, there's a pettiness to these types of set-piece debates in Parliament that shouldn't be encouraged outwith

From where I stand, it pales into insignificance compared to the systemised degradation of the most vulnerable in our society. Maybe we should question why we start more threads about the former than the latter?

[Hibbyradge]

No.

It's as I said in my post. We can all make our own judgements about what's most important.

People can go with the headline-friendly 'Little Red Book' story if they want. Or the police funding non-story. But the level of cheers from the likes of Philip Davies et al isn't going to be my barometer, there's a pettiness to these types of set-piece debates in Parliament that shouldn't be encouraged outwith

From where I stand, it pales into insignificance compared to the systemised degradation of the most vulnerable in our society. Maybe we should question why we start more threads about the former than the latter?

We need to get the Tories out of power.

Bemoaning all the inequities in society may be good for the soul, but it will achieve nothing if we can't influence the voting public.

If people are serious about affecting change then they have to seize power, but I have seen no evidence to make me think that Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell or Seamus Milne et al have the first clue about how to do that.

And, like it or not, that is important.

[Moulin Yarns]

Maybe they don't realise you work there.

Oi :greengrin

[marinello59]

I saw that.

In the grand scheme of things weigh them up and decide what we as a society think is more important though.

One middle-aged man throwing a pamphlet at another (younger) middle-aged man, on television

or

Whether women should be taxed to stop men assaulting them

:dunno:

The middle aged man throwing the pamphlet obviously thought that his pre-planned stunt was more important than highlighting the flaws in the chancellor's statement and let him off the hook. So much for Corbyn's new politics, that was simply bad panto style stuff yesterday.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

Osbourne did the right thing by scrapping the tax credits. It was a stupid and unfair policy which a lot of his own party did not support. The whole fiasco should act as a reminder to the tories that this isn't the 80s and the average Tory voter these days doesn't find it acceptable to take money from the low paid.

McDonnell has generally been better than I thought he would and I've seen him speak well on Question Time and other interviews. I quite like him because he's 'real', unlike the previous lot who seemed to do what ever their focus groups told them would win the most votes. The Mao stunt was a bit too far though and most of his own party looked a bit embarrassed by it.

[Hibbyradge]

Osbourne did the right thing by scrapping the tax credits. It was a stupid and unfair policy which a lot of his own party did not support.

I agree. The country will quickly forgive him for this particular u-turn, although he won't call it that anyway.

I think the tax credits issue could have become Osborne's poll tax so it's as good a move for the Tories politically, as it is financially for the people who were going to be hurt by the cuts.

If Thatcher had made a similar u-turn, things may have been quite different. But she wasn't for turning. Thankfully.

[snooky]

I agree. The country will quickly forgive him for this particular u-turn, although he won't call it that anyway.

I think the tax credits issue could have become Osborne's poll tax so it's as good a move for the Tories politically, as it is financially for the people who were going to be hurt by the cuts.

If Thatcher had made a similar u-turn, things may have been quite different. But she wasn't for turning. Thankfully.
This is the same as the playground bully who is confronted by a gang of the people he torments. He'll back down to save himself a doin' but he'll get even later.
He's still the same bully.

[hibsbollah]

Shhh dinnae tell 'bollah that's what you thought of McDonnell ;-)

:rolleyes:

You and I have been debating on the holy ground for years, and it's always been well mannered and we respect each others opinion. I see that less and less on here these days. It's a shame.

[RyeSloan]

:rolleyes: You and I have been debating on the holy ground for years, and it's always been well mannered and we respect each others opinion. I see that less and less on here these days. It's a shame.

Ach it was meant as a light hearted jibe...no need to throw the (red) book at me ;-)

[Hibbyradge]

This is the same as the playground bully who is confronted by a gang of the people he torments. He'll back down to save himself a doin' but he'll get even later.
He's still the same bully.

Granted, and I would never tire of repeatedly crushing the heel of my boot into his face (metaphorically at least), but I can appreciate a shrewd political move, can't I?

[Mibbes Aye]

The middle aged man throwing the pamphlet obviously thought that his pre-planned stunt was more important than highlighting the flaws in the chancellor's statement and let him off the hook. So much for Corbyn's new politics, that was simply bad panto style stuff yesterday.

Agree with that.

[Mibbes Aye]

We need to get the Tories out of power.

Bemoaning all the inequities in society may be good for the soul, but it will achieve nothing if we can't influence the voting public.

If people are serious about affecting change then they have to seize power, but I have seen no evidence to make me think that Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell or Seamus Milne et al have the first clue about how to do that.

And, like it or not, that is important.

More than half the voting public are women. Highlighting a Tory policy that treats violence against women as a women's issue, rather than a societal issue, may be bemoaning inequity but it undoubtedly helps influence voting intentions.

Think about what groups or demographics you think you belong to and imagine being on the receiving end of that sort of insult and injury?

As we've also discussed elsewhere though, we aren't seeing the evidence from the Labour leadership yet, I agree. It's a worry.

[Hibbyradge]

More than half the voting public are women. Highlighting a Tory policy that treats violence against women as a women's issue, rather than a societal issue, may be bemoaning inequity but it undoubtedly helps influence voting intentions.

Think about what groups or demographics you think you belong to and imagine being on the receiving end of that sort of insult and injury?

As we've also discussed elsewhere though, we aren't seeing the evidence from the Labour leadership yet, I agree. It's a worry.

I'm not sure how I'm finding myself in the position of apologist for the Tories, but I doubt they're going to lose any votes because of this. For a start, Women's Aid have welcomed the extra cash.

Would it have been better just to blame the EU and keep the cash in the general coffers as has been the case until now?

I will admit that I've not read or heard very much about this issue, and I didn't hear Osborne's words at the time, so I may have missed a salient point or two, but I don';t understand the connection between violence against women, and the use of the tax raised on sanitary products?

[lyonhibs]

I'm not sure how I'm finding myself in the position of apologist for the Tories, but I doubt they're going to lose any votes because of this. For a start, Women's Aid have welcomed the extra cash.

Would it have been better just to blame the EU and keep the cash in the general coffers as has been the case until now?

I will admit that I've not read or heard very much about this issue, and I didn't hear Osborne's words at the time, so I may have missed a salient point or two, but I don';t understand the connection between violence against women, and the use of the tax raised on sanitary products?

That's the link I'm not getting either.

[Sylar]

That's the link I'm not getting either.

He said at the time, that whilst the UK negotiates a reduction in the Tax in Europe, it should go to benefit womens' health and crisis charities. If the tax must remain in place, his proposal (which was produced by the current MP for Colchester) was that it should benefit women's charities.

In short, since women are paying this tax, women should benefit from it though there are many moral arguments that could be made against that!

[Hibbyradge]

He said at the time, that whilst the UK negotiates a reduction in the Tax in Europe, it should go to benefit womens' health and crisis charities. If the tax must remain in place, his proposal (which was produced by the current MP for Colchester) was that it should benefit women's charities.

In short, since women are paying this tax, women should benefit from it though there are many moral arguments that could be made against that!

I'm still struggling to understand what's wrong with this. What are those moral arguments?

The government were (wrongly) getting pelters for taxing tampons as luxury goods. The money raised was going directly into the treasury's general fund. Women's Aid was getting nowt.

The government is trying to negotiate a change in the tax status of the product, but is unable to change it unilaterally.

It would be impossible to give women their tax back, so it's going to help charity instead.

If I've missed something, please spell it out because I'm happy to have ammunition to throw at the Tories. I just don't think there is any in this instance.

[Sylar]

I'm still struggling to understand what's wrong with this. What are those moral arguments?

The government were (wrongly) getting pelters for taxing tampons as luxury goods. The money raised was going directly into the treasury's general fund. Women's Aid was getting nowt.

The government is trying to negotiate a change in the tax status of the product, but is unable to change it unilaterally.

It would be impossible to give women their tax back, so it's going to help charity instead.

If I've missed something, please spell it out because I'm happy to have ammunition to throw at the Tories. I just don't think there is any in this instance.

Firstly, it's disappointing that it's through this tax that charities are going to benefit - they should be receiving funding from government, as they provide an invaluable service. Also, morally, it could be argued that in essence these woman are paying for a degree of protection IF the unthinkable happens - it's a wee bit cyclical. Again, coming back to the argument that there should be comprehensive funding already provided to the facilities these many charities provide.

Secondly, what happens if/when they negotiate the abolition of said tax? Will they continue to fund these services out of taxpayer funds?

Finally, many of the charities that are in line to benefit are exclusionary, often not providing for transgender people or sex workers. There's often a religious attachment to such refuge services and they can dictate who does or does not receive aid.

That these charities are in line for a windfall is, without a doubt, a positive thing. I'm just acutely aware of the dissent from some quarters regarding the source.

[CropleyWasGod]

Firstly, it's disappointing that it's through this tax that charities are going to benefit - they should be receiving funding from government, as they provide an invaluable service. Also, morally, it could be argued that in essence these woman are paying for a degree of protection IF the unthinkable happens - it's a wee bit cyclical. Again, coming back to the argument that there should be comprehensive funding already provided to the facilities these many charities provide.

Secondly, what happens if/when they negotiate the abolition of said tax? Will they continue to fund these services out of taxpayer funds?

Finally, many of the charities that are in line to benefit are exclusionary, often not providing for transgender people or sex workers. There's often a religious attachment to such refuge services and they can dictate who does or does not receive aid.

That these charities are in line for a windfall is, without a doubt, a positive thing. I'm just acutely aware of the dissent from some quarters regarding the source.

Women's Aid, Rape Crisis and the likes already do get Government funding. Some might say too much, but that's for another thread.

I would definitely agree your point about TG and sex-workers. The funding that such sectors get from Government is scandalously low, particularly in relation to the likes of WA. Again, another thread :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

Firstly, it's disappointing that it's through this tax that charities are going to benefit - they should be receiving funding from government, as they provide an invaluable service. Also, morally, it could be argued that in essence these woman are paying for a degree of protection IF the unthinkable happens - it's a wee bit cyclical. Again, coming back to the argument that there should be comprehensive funding already provided to the facilities these many charities provide.

Secondly, what happens if/when they negotiate the abolition of said tax? Will they continue to fund these services out of taxpayer funds?

Finally, many of the charities that are in line to benefit are exclusionary, often not providing for transgender people or sex workers. There's often a religious attachment to such refuge services and they can dictate who does or does not receive aid.

That these charities are in line for a windfall is, without a doubt, a positive thing. I'm just acutely aware of the dissent from some quarters regarding the source.

I agree that everyone's safety should be provided for by the state.

However, it seems that if Osborne hadn't have given the cash to charity then no-one would be complaining. It's weird.

[RyeSloan]

I agree that everyone's safety should be provided for by the state. However, it seems that if Osborne hadn't have given the cash to charity then no-one would be complaining. It's weird.

Very weird...it's clearly getting all mixed up with other grievances and other government spending cuts as well as a lot of people ignoring the fact that the tax is 'forced' on the UK by the EU.

The summation of social media backlash that I've read suggests that he would have been better off not mentioning anything which would of course resulted in none of the tax going to the charities mentioned.

I get the fact that it's an unfair tax (although let's be honest it's 5% so not exactly a punitive one) and I think most people would agree it should be abolished but until the European rules are changed to do so what were the other options?

[Sylar]

I agree that everyone's safety should be provided for by the state.

However, it seems that if Osborne hadn't have given the cash to charity then no-one would be complaining. It's weird.

It is a little odd, I agree. As I said, I think that on the whole, these charities getting the windfall is positive.


Very weird...it's clearly getting all mixed up with other grievances and other government spending cuts as well as a lot of people ignoring the fact that the tax is 'forced' on the UK by the EU.

The summation of social media backlash that I've read suggests that he would have been better off not mentioning anything which would of course resulted in none of the tax going to the charities mentioned.

I get the fact that it's an unfair tax (although let's be honest it's 5% so not exactly a punitive one) and I think most people would agree it should be abolished but until the European rules are changed to do so what were the other options?

Some of the criticisms I've read are summed up in this blog:

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraising/blogs/content/20859/using_the_tampon_tax_to_fund_womens_charities_is_a _patronising_move_from_government

I can understand why some people are uncomfortable with the setup and I do hope they find a way to keep providing that £15 million should they successfully abolish the tax in the EU.

[Mibbes Aye]

He said at the time, that whilst the UK negotiates a reduction in the Tax in Europe, it should go to benefit womens' health and crisis charities. If the tax must remain in place, his proposal (which was produced by the current MP for Colchester) was that it should benefit women's charities.

In short, since women are paying this tax, women should benefit from it though there are many moral arguments that could be made against that!

I think you are right.

Why should a social problem that is almost exclusively caused by men against women be dealt with by taxing women?

It's a bit like saying Show Racism The Red Card should be funded by taxing black people (not an exact analogy I accept, but you can get the gist).

There is a streak that runs through a lot of Tory policies, now and thirty years ago, that seeks to responsibilise the vulnerable or the least powerful - whether it was Peter Lilley and single mothers, or asylum seekers or the benefits cap (which is a housing benefit issue first and foremost and therefore about buy-to-let landlords, rather than supposed 'scroungers').

Saying that violence against women is a problem and then saying that the response is to tackle it by specifically taxing women strikes me as immoral, but more importantly, what message does it imply about who is at fault?

[CropleyWasGod]

I think you are right.

Why should a social problem that is almost exclusively caused by men against women be dealt with by taxing women?

It's a bit like saying Show Racism The Red Card should be funded by taxing black people (not an exact analogy I accept, but you can get the gist).

There is a streak that runs through a lot of Tory policies, now and thirty years ago, that seeks to responsibilise the vulnerable or the least powerful - whether it was Peter Lilley and single mothers, or asylum seekers or the benefits cap (which is a housing benefit issue first and foremost and therefore about buy-to-let landlords, rather than supposed 'scroungers').

Saying that violence against women is a problem and then saying that the response is to tackle it by specifically taxing women strikes me as immoral, but more importantly, what message does it imply about who is at fault?

That's not what is happening, though. The tax is there for the foreseeable, and the Government can't do anything about it. They're trying to ameliorate the effects of what is an immoral tax, but which is unavoidable for the moment.

Canny believe I'm defending a Tory policy :greengrin

Interesting moral argument, though. I'm involved in a group that might apply for some of the £10m that's up for grabs.......but the ethical debate about whether we do or not is gonna be a cracker.:cb

[Mibbes Aye]

That's not what is happening, though. The tax is there for the foreseeable, and the Government can't do anything about it. They're trying to ameliorate the effects of what is an immoral tax, but which is unavoidable for the moment.

Canny believe I'm defending a Tory policy :greengrin

Interesting moral argument, though. I'm involved in a group that might apply for some of the £10m that's up for grabs.......but the ethical debate about whether we do or not is gonna be a cracker.:cb

You're right to question that :greengrin

I accept your refutation of what I'm saying but I don't think they are ameliorating the effects - to evidence that would require some redistributive tax credit for women only or subsidising the suppliers to sell at a discounted price. I'm not suggesting that's what should be done, but that's what it would take to ameliorate the policy.

For me, what this is, is them trying to forge a connection between the victim and responsibility for their plight. As I suggested with the racism metaphor in the previous post. And let's face it, they have previous for this.......

[CropleyWasGod]

You're right to question that :greengrin

I accept your refutation of what I'm saying but I don't think they are ameliorating the effects - to evidence that would require some redistributive tax credit for women only or subsidising the suppliers to sell at a discounted price. I'm not suggesting that's what should be done, but that's what it would take to ameliorate the policy.

For me, what this is, is them trying to forge a connection between the victim and responsibility for their plight. As I suggested with the racism metaphor in the previous post. And let's face it, they have previous for this.......

Like a Tory Government is going to do either of those things. :greengrin

On a lighter note, this is what the Daily Mash said should be done:-

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/use-jaffa-cakes-instead-of-tampons-says-osborne-2015021895463

[Mibbes Aye]

Like a Tory Government is going to do either of those things. :greengrin

On a lighter note, this is what the Daily Mash said should be done:-

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/use-jaffa-cakes-instead-of-tampons-says-osborne-2015021895463

:tee hee:

Worst thing is, we're laughing now, couple of years time and it will be a serious policy initiative by the Tories :greengrin

[Jack]

I brought the tampon tax thing up a few months ago.

Apparently all the UK government has to do to get the EU to agree to doing away with this tax is ask, the same way as Ireland did and the luxury item is no longer taxed!

As I said this was a few months ago, when Australia was talking about the same thing. I wonder if the UK government has actually done anything at all in that time, or indeed anytime.

Will the Torys make out this seemingly open door will be part of the hard ball negotiations regarding our membership in the months to come?

[RyeSloan]

I brought the tampon tax thing up a few months ago. Apparently all the UK government has to do to get the EU to agree to doing away with this tax is ask, the same way as Ireland did and the luxury item is no longer taxed! As I said this was a few months ago, when Australia was talking about the same thing. I wonder if the UK government has actually done anything at all in that time, or indeed anytime. Will the Torys make out this seemingly open door will be part of the hard ball negotiations regarding our membership in the months to come?

Ireland didn't 'ask' it was already zero rated when they joined the EU so had an exemption.

It is precisely that joining negotiation process that has hamstrung the UK government...once something is classified as a luxury good it is pretty much there forever unless the relevant EU directive can be changed.

I absolutely agree the tax is gender specific and should be removed but let's be honest there is significant mis-information about it.

For example campaigners have stated male razors are exempt of zero rated. Not true. These are charged at 20% They have claimed the UK government has the power to remove the tax. Also not true. And finally the cost of the tax is reckoned to be £1-£3 p.a on average so let's be very clear that the campaign for its removal is a symbolic one rather than based on the fact the tax prevents access to a life necessity.

Finally where does this type of outrage stop? At the vat rate applied? At the supermarket who makes a profit selling them? At the companies who make a profit making them? And what about other necessities like toothpaste, soap, shampoo? Or does none of them matter because males use them as well?

Gender equality is a serious issue, but focussing on this tax on one product and doing so in such an ill informed way does little to progress that particular issue.

[CropleyWasGod]

Ireland didn't 'ask' it was already zero rated when they joined the EU so had an exemption.

It is precisely that joining negotiation process that has hamstrung the UK government...once something is classified as a luxury good it is pretty much there forever unless the relevant EU directive can be changed.

I absolutely agree the tax is gender specific and should be removed but let's be honest there is significant mis-information about it.

For example campaigners have stated male razors are exempt of zero rated. Not true. These are charged at 20% They have claimed the UK government has the power to remove the tax. Also not true. And finally the cost of the tax is reckoned to be £1-£3 p.a on average so let's be very clear that the campaign for its removal is a symbolic one rather than based on the fact the tax prevents access to a life necessity.

Finally where does this type of outrage stop? At the vat rate applied? At the supermarket who makes a profit selling them? At the companies who make a profit making them? And what about other necessities like toothpaste, soap, shampoo? Or does none of them matter because males use them as well?

Gender equality is a serious issue, but focussing on this tax on one product and doing so in such an ill informed way does little to progress that particular issue.
Clarify that first point for me.

Didn't VAT come about in the UK and ROI because we joined the EU? In that case, how could anything be zero rated when we joined?



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

Clarify that first point for me.

Didn't VAT come about in the UK and ROI because we joined the EU? In that case, how could anything be zero rated when we joined?



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-32883153

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-32883153
Great, thanks.

Will need all this stuff over the next week or so :)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

Great, thanks.

Will need all this stuff over the next week or so :)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I know! :greengrin

I'm all for attacking your political opponents at every opportunity, but I think this complaint is tenuous and discredits the campaigners.

The average woman and man in the street isn't particularly bothered about this issue as the cost is minimal and they see the government trying to do something positive with the unwanted tax.

If there is an argument for more to be done centrally and directly to protect women from domestic violence, then make the case, loud and clear, but having a go at the government for doing something for charity doesn't make sense.

If Osborne had asked in advance for suggestions about what to do with the tax, I would guess that giving it to women's aid, might have cropped up.

I doubt anyone would have told him to keep it in the general taxation pot and only a few would have suggested giving it to ProtratecancerUK.