Labour attacks Osborne over "£2bn tax cut" for the banks

The party releases new figures showing that the banks have paid £1.9bn less in tax than David Cameron promised after cuts to corporation tax.

Parliament officially returns from its Easter recess today and Labour's number crunchers are already causing mischief for George Osborne. The party has accused the Chancellor of handing banks a £2bn tax cut after releasing new figures showing that the coalition's bank levy has raised significantly less than expected in the last two years. 

David Cameron pledged that the levy would raise £2.5bn a year and offset the gains to banks from the cuts in corporation tax. But figures from the OBR show that the levy raised just £1.6bn in 2012-13, while banks received a corporation tax cut of £200m, leaving the Treasury with a net gain of £1.4bn - £1.1bn less than promised. The previous year (2011-12), the levy raised £1.8bn, while the banks gained £100m from the corporation tax cut, a net gain of £1.7bn, or £800m less than promised. In total, then, the banks have paid £3.1bn in tax, £1.9bn less than pledged by Cameron (see table below).

 

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

Labour bank bonus tax (£bn)

3.5

n/a

n/a

Tory-led Government bank levy (£bn)

n/a

1.8

1.6

Corporation Tax rate (%)

28

26

24

Corporation tax cut for banks from 2010-11 level (£bn)

n/a

0.1

0.2

Net amount raised from banks (£bn)

3.5

1.7

1.4

Amount raised compared to £2.5bn promised by govt (£bn)

n/a

-0.8

-1.1

Chris Leslie, the shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, plans to raise the figures when the Commons debates the second reading of the Finance Bill later today. He said: 

On top of last week’s tax cut for millionaires, this is effectively a tax cut of nearly £2 billion for the banks at a time when millions of working people are being forced to pay the price for this government’s economic failure.

Whether it’s on tax or watering down reforms to separate retail and investment banks, David Cameron and George Osborne have repeatedly failed to stand up to the vested interests of the banks.  

Labour is still urging the coalition to repeat Alistair Darling's bank bonus tax, which raised £3.5bn in 2010-11, in order to fund a jobs guarantee for every young person unemployed for more than a year (a measure the party is particularly keen to highlight as the benefit cap and other welfare reforms take effect). 

The Treasury has responded by stating that the "fragility of global financial markets" means it is unsurprising that the levy has raised less than by expected and by promising to review it this year "to ensure it is operating efficiently". 

As for the bank bonus tax, we can expect Osborne to point out that Darling himself described it as a "one-off" on the grounds that "the very people you are after here are very good at getting out of these things and will find all sorts of imaginative ways of avoiding it in the future". To most voters, however, that will sound like an argument for tackling avoidance, not for cutting taxes. And the banks' toxic reputation, combined with the image of a government devoted to the rich, means this remains fertile political territory for Labour. 

In the last two years, the banks have paid £3.1bn in tax, £1.9bn less than the government promised. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: ASA
Show Hide image

Harmful gender stereotypes in ads have real impact – so we're challenging them

The ASA must make sure future generations don't recoil at our commercials.

July’s been quite the month for gender in the news. From Jodie Whittaker’s casting in Doctor Who, to trains “so simple even women can drive them”, to how much the Beeb pays its female talent, gender issues have dominated. 

You might think it was an appropriate time for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to launch our own contribution to the debate, Depictions, Perceptions and Harm: a report on gender stereotypes in advertising, the result of more than a year’s careful scrutiny of the evidence base.

Our report makes the case that, while most ads (and the businesses behind them) are getting it right when it comes to avoiding damaging gender stereotypes, the evidence suggests that some could do with reigning it in a little. Specifically, it argues that some ads can contribute to real world harms in the way they portray gender roles and characteristics.

We’re not talking here about ads that show a woman doing the cleaning or a man the DIY. It would be most odd if advertisers couldn’t depict a woman doing the family shop or a man mowing the lawn. Ads cannot be divorced from reality.

What we’re talking about is ads that go significantly further by, for example, suggesting through their content and context that it’s a mum’s sole duty to tidy up after her family, who’ve just trashed the house. Or that an activity or career is inappropriate for a girl because it’s the preserve of men. Or that boys are not “proper” boys if they’re not strong and stoical. Or that men are hopeless at simple parental or household tasks because they’re, well...men.

Advertising is only a small contributor to gender stereotyping, but a contributor it is. And there’s ever greater recognition of the harms that can result from gender stereotyping. Put simply, gender stereotypes can lead us to have a narrower sense of ourselves – how we can behave, who we can be, the opportunities we can take, the decisions we can make. And they can lead other people to have a narrower sense of us too. 

That can affect individuals, whatever their gender. It can affect the economy: we have a shortage of engineers in this country, in part, says the UK’s National Academy of Engineering, because many women don’t see it as a career for them. And it can affect our society as a whole.

Many businesses get this already. A few weeks ago, UN Women and Unilever announced the global launch of Unstereotype Alliance, with some of the world’s biggest companies, including Proctor & Gamble, Mars, Diageo, Facebook and Google signing up. Advertising agencies like JWT and UM have very recently published their own research, further shining the spotlight on gender stereotyping in advertising. 

At the ASA, we see our UK work as a complement to an increasingly global response to the issue. And we’re doing it with broad support from the UK advertising industry: the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) – the industry bodies which author the UK Advertising Codes that we administer – have been very closely involved in our work and will now flesh out the standards we need to help advertisers stay on the right side of the line.

Needless to say, our report has attracted a fair amount of comment. And commentators have made some interesting and important arguments. Take my “ads cannot be divorced from reality” point above. Clearly we – the UK advertising regulator - must take into account the way things are, but what should we do if, for example, an ad is reflecting a part of society as it is now, but that part is not fair and equal? 

The ad might simply be mirroring the way things are, but at a time when many people in our society, including through public policy and equality laws, are trying to mould it into something different. If we reign in the more extreme examples, are we being social engineers? Or are we simply taking a small step in redressing the imbalance in a society where the drip, drip, drip of gender stereotyping over many years has, itself, been social engineering. And social engineering which, ironically, has left us with too few engineers.

Read more: Why new rules on gender stereotyping in ads benefit men, too

The report gave news outlets a chance to run plenty of well-known ads from yesteryear. Fairy Liquid, Shake 'n' Vac and some real “even a woman can open it”-type horrors from decades ago. For some, that was an opportunity to make the point that ads really were sexist back then, but everything’s fine on the gender stereotyping front today. That argument shows a real lack of imagination. 

History has not stopped. If we’re looking back at ads of 50 years ago and marvelling at how we thought they were OK back then, despite knowing they were products of their time, won’t our children and grandchildren be doing exactly the same thing in 50 years’ time? What “norms” now will seem antiquated and unpleasant in the future? We think the evidence points to some portrayals of gender roles and characteristics being precisely such norms, excused by some today on the basis that that’s just the way it is.

Our report signals that change is coming. CAP will now work on the standards so we can pin down the rules and official guidance. We don’t want to catch advertisers out, so we and CAP will work hard to provide as much advice and training as we can, so they can get their ads right in the first place. And from next year, we at the ASA will make sure those standards are followed, taking care that our regulation is balanced and wholly respectful of the public’s desire to continue to see creative ads that are relevant, entertaining and informative. 

You won’t see a sea-change in the ads that appear, but we hope to smooth some of the rougher edges. This is a small but important step in making sure modern society is better represented in ads.

Guy Parker is CEO of the ASA