Who’s a Pretty Philly then?
Phil Woolas, the Immigration Minister, has denied a report in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph that he had claimed for the cost of women’s clothing
He called the allegation “disgusting”, however the Telegraph are not backing down (as yet)
The Tesco bill, dated Aug 12, included a pair of women’s shoes for £23, two packets of disposable bibs priced £2.98 each, a bottle of nail polish at £5.75, three comics for £5.14, two packs of babies wipes at £1.44 each and a ladies’ jumper at £5.
A Tesco receipt for £110.20, showed he spent £1.48 on panty liners, £1.19 on tampons, £2.99 on nappies and £15 on a ladies’ blouse.
Two of those items particularly interested me. Not just because unless Mr Woolas has had a spectacularly successful sex change operation, he has no personal need for the tampons and panty liners, but because it is particularly irksome to see anyone attempt to justify them to the Fees Office as being:
Irksome because for many years now there has been a campaign running to have VAT removed from these items, on the grounds that they are an essential item for women.
Since the 1970s, campaigners have been calling for sanitary products to be eligible for a zero rate of tax. In more recent times, a campaign led by MP Christine McCafferty petitioned the Labour government for a reduction in the tax rate, describing tax rates of 17.5 per cent as ‘offensive’. And things are getting better. From January 2001, the rate of VAT for sanitary protection products was lowered from the full rate to 5 per cent, in line with EU restrictions
VAT does what it says on the tin – it’s a value added tax on items deemed to be ‘luxuries’, rather than ‘necessities’.
The Government does rather well out of the VAT on sanitary items. Some £25million a year out of designating them as ‘luxuries’ rather than ‘necessities’.
So this morning I have written to Harriet Harman – surely she will find time to answer me? – to ask her, with her new found interest in matters of Equality, to explain to me how the humble tampon manages to be both a ‘luxury’ for a woman, and a ‘necessity’ for a man, and a tax payer funded ‘necessity’ at that.
Her reply should be interesting, I shall share it with you.
It used to be that MPs buying items of women’s clothing were notoriously conservative. How times have changed.
- Changing the rules Anonymong
- May 11, 2009 at 3:53 pm
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
-
1
May 11, 2009 at 12:50 pm -
Back in the 1950’s Gerald Nabarro, a Tory back bencher had endless fun with the inconsistencies and idiocies of the different rates of the then PurchasingTax. As for expenses if you have a complicated, loose at the edges scheme that is little checked and less understood, then it will all get very messy, and everyone suffers. In the case of Parliament as anywhere else, some greasers will play every trick in the book, some puritans will try to stick to the basics. As it is Parliament, then it is the taxpayers who are doing the suffering, and they are not much interested in the detail, only the worst that they are forking out for. It’s called an accident waiting to happen, and it is the way we are governed today.
-
2
May 11, 2009 at 2:43 pm -
Phil Woolas has the sort of face you’d never get tired of punching.
-
3
May 11, 2009 at 3:40 pm -
Ah yes AR, those were the days. When Conservatives were conservative and Socialists fought the cause of ethnic minorities. Once again I feel I am living in a parallel universe or topsy turvey land. It’s such a relief that The Daily Telegraph, The Mail and The Express are still slagging off the lefties, if that stopped I wouldn’t know where I was.
And since I read this article I have started mourning my transition from tampons to panty liners. Old age is a terrible thing (though I’m nothing like as old as you Anna) but what can’t be cured, they say, must be endured.
Hey ho!
-
4
May 11, 2009 at 3:52 pm -
And Anna, you suggest that Mr Woolas ‘has no personal need for the tampons and panty liners’. Hmmm, a few weeks ago on BBC’s The Apprentice one of the contestants admitted that, when he was waiting to see if he was about to be fired, he ‘did a little wee in his pants’. I believe it was James McQuillan who, despite his lack of potty training, is still there.
So give Mr Woolas the benefit of the doubt and consider that maybe he has problems with controlling his other bodily functions too, which is where the tampons might come in useful.
-
5
May 11, 2009 at 3:56 pm -
6
May 11, 2009 at 3:58 pm -
AR I am not yet one of the furry lip brigade, whereas you I see are furry all over. Ha! Ha!
-
7
May 11, 2009 at 4:00 pm -
8
May 11, 2009 at 4:05 pm -
Just don’t start AR. Have just read your ‘The money go-round’ post and immediately started humming …. the consequent Mein fraulein has just made it worse.
Damn your eyes – I’m going to be cabareting around all day now.
-
9
May 12, 2009 at 1:57 am -
Janes ………… ‘So give Mr Woolas the benefit of the doubt and consider that maybe he has problems with controlling his other bodily functions too, which is where the tampons might come in useful.’
I was wondering if he used the panty-liners and tampons to grow very tiny seeds on his House of Commons window-ledge. I never thought that his bum may be leaking. Of course I have always been familiar with the fact that many Parliamentarians have a penchant for wearing women’s clothing …………… so I didn’t even bat an eye at that.
-
10
May 12, 2009 at 11:18 pm -
Every libertarian’s favourite MP, Kerry McCarthy, has a post on her blog saying some of these “claims” might just be what’s on the receipt and not actually a claim.
It might be worth putting the pitchforks and torches down for a second and waiting to see if the Telegraph have got the wrong end of the stick with some of this stuff.
{ 1 trackback }