Sugar tax

They say no news is good news, but what to make of old news? Today’s papers (including this front page) feature rather boastful headlines about the success of the sugar tax (a levy on soft drinks companies concocted by former chancellor George Osborne, with the stated aim of tackling obesity). The i reports that the levy has “revolutionised the industry, with the average beverage now 28 per cent less sugary than before the tax was introduced,” according to a new study from researchers at Oxford University. But is the sugar tax really something to celebrate? While the study may be ‘new’, the figures are not. They were published by Public Health England last September, which noted that

On the subject of MPs who hope Boris Johnson might give them a job, Matt Hancock was before the Health Select Committee this afternoon, where he ended up taking a fair bit of flak for what the current government hasn’t done, and what the next administration might do. After his own failed leadership bid, the Health and Social Care Secretary backed Johnson, which made for a very awkward section in today’s hearing about the sugar tax. Hancock was repeatedly pressed on Johnson’s pledge to review ‘sin taxes’, including the one on sugary drinks, and he repeatedly answered that the most important thing was to look at the evidence behind the

It will hit Consumers: The tax is designed to be levied on soft drinks companies, based on the volume of sugar-sweetened drinks they import of export. But the independent economic forecaster, the Office of Budgetary Responsibility, states the costs of the levy will be ‘passed entirely onto the price paid by consumers’. That means it will be the public, not soft drinks companies that end up paying the costs of the new tax. It will actually cost the Treasury money: The levy is expected to raise a maximum of £520 million per year. However, because the levy pushes up inflation, the British Government will be hit with a £1 billion

George Osborne’s announcement in the Budget that he wants to help fight childhood obesity through a tax on sugary drinks has provoked the usual grumbles. But this is not a ‘pious, regressive absurdity’, as some claim. It is practical action that will help to tackle an avoidable health disaster for the nation’s children, a quarter of whom from the most disadvantaged families are leaving primary school not just overweight but obese. This is double the rate for the most advantaged children and the inequality gap is rising every year. If that had no consequences for them, there would be no case for action, but obesity blights their future health and life chances.

The fat man of Europe is getting fatter. His teeth are rotting from the sugar in his coke and chocolates. He feeds his children bread and pasta instead of quinoa and couscous. It is time to tax the fat man – he must learn to stop eating sugar. And today, George Osborne has acted. In his Budget, he noted with disgust that some boys eat their own body weight in sugar. He has introduced a tax on sugary drinks – to the applause of the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and (doubtless) Jamie Oliver who pioneered this snobbish idea in his restaurants. This can be expected to be the first of many. The path

George Osborne and the government are apparently in ‘listening mode’ about tax credits and Bernard Jenkin has something to say. The Tory chair of the Public Administration select committee has a novel proposition for how to fund a way to soften the blow of the cuts. In my piece for Politico Europe today, Jenkin tells me: ‘I think Osborne should carry on with the cuts but ameliorate the introduction for those worst affected. It would show he is listening and compassionate If he needs the extra revenue and cannot find other short-term savings, he should be considering the Sugar Tax.’ The idea of a tax on sugary foods and drinks has been advocated

The fat man of Europe is getting fatter. His teeth are rotting from the sugar in his coke and chocolates. He feeds his children bread and pasta instead of quinoa and couscous. It is time to tax the fat man – he must learn to stop eating sugar. And in a long-awaited report, Public Health England has proposed a tax of up to 20 per cent on soft drinks and similarly sugary products – just like that proposed by the BMA. It finds that:- “A recently introduced 10 per cent tax on sugary drinks in Mexico has seen an average 6 per cent decline in purchases in the first few months”. Jamie Oliver

Ties that bind Lewis Hamilton was ejected from the royal box at Wimbledon for not wearing a tie. Some places he would have been welcome: — In 99 out of 100 of the most expensive restaurants surveyed in 2010. — For four evenings a week on a Cunard cruise (he would need a tie after 6 p.m. on the other three). — Driving a cab in Dubai (ties are no longer compulsory after a customer pulled one driver’s). And some places he wouldn’t: — Visiting Lloyds of London. — Competition days at Knebworth Golf Club (though socks are not usually compulsory). — Bicester Community College (ties compulsory for pupils from September).

Why is it that whenever anyone proposes a tax on the wealthy all hell breaks loose, but when someone proposes a tax on the poor there is no more than a faint whimper of protest? Yesterday, life sciences minister George Freeman, speaking at the Hay Festival, floated the idea of a sugar tax. In contrast to Labour’s mansion tax or the removal of tax privileges for non-doms, my email inbox was not immediately jammed with statements from upmarket estate agents, accountants and others representing the interests of the rich warning of how it would ruin the economy. It is fairly obvious who will pay the sugar tax: it would be