The £43 Million Tampon Tax Victory: How 320,000 Signatures Exposed a Century of Parliamentary Sexism

The Tax That Time Forgot

For 45 years, British women paid value-added tax on sanitary products while men's razors, children's clothes, and even exotic meats like crocodile and kangaroo remained tax-free. The 5% "tampon tax" generated £43 million annually for the Treasury—money extracted from women for the biological reality of menstruation.

In 2015, a university student named Laura Coryton decided this was absurd. Her Change.org petition demanding an end to the tampon tax would gather 320,000 signatures and expose a century of institutionalized sexism embedded in Britain's tax code.

The Student Who Challenged the Treasury

Laura Coryton was 21 when she launched her petition from her Goldsmiths University dorm room. "I was buying tampons and realized I was paying tax on them," she recalls. "Then I discovered that men's razors were tax-free. It was such an obvious example of sexist policy that I couldn't believe no one had challenged it."

Her petition, titled "Stop taxing periods. Period," went viral within days. But the campaign's real power came from its ability to make visible a form of discrimination that had been hiding in plain sight for nearly half a century.

The petition exposed a fundamental absurdity in UK tax law: items deemed "essential" were exempt from VAT, while "luxury" items faced the 5% rate. According to this logic, tampons were luxuries while men's razors, children's clothes, and even printed books were necessities.

The Parliamentary Boys' Club Responds

The government's initial response revealed just how entrenched sexist assumptions had become in policy-making. In November 2015, then-Chancellor George Osborne dismissed the petition, claiming his hands were tied by EU regulations that prevented changes to VAT rates.

This response backfired spectacularly. Campaign researchers quickly discovered that other EU countries had secured exemptions or reductions for sanitary products, exposing Osborne's claim as either ignorant or deliberately misleading.

The petition's success in generating media attention forced uncomfortable questions about why male-dominated institutions had never noticed or challenged the tampon tax. As one Treasury insider later admitted: "It genuinely hadn't occurred to most senior officials that this was discriminatory. That's the problem when your decision-makers are predominantly men."

The Coalition of the Ignored

The tampon tax petition succeeded because it united women across class and political boundaries around a shared experience. Unlike abstract policy debates, every woman understood the immediate personal impact of paying tax on products they couldn't choose not to use.

The campaign attracted support from unexpected quarters. Conservative MP Maria Miller championed the cause in Parliament, while Labour's Angela Eagle led opposition attacks on government policy. Even traditionally conservative women's organizations joined the campaign, recognizing it as a basic fairness issue rather than a partisan political battle.

"This wasn't about left versus right," explains Dr. Rosie Campbell, director of the Global Institute for Women's Leadership at King's College London. "It was about making visible a form of discrimination that had been normalized through institutional blindness."

Celebrity support came from across the entertainment industry. Ruby Wax, Kirstie Allsopp, and Paloma Faith all shared the petition, amplifying its reach beyond traditional activist networks. The campaign's social media hashtag #EndTamponTax generated millions of impressions, creating cultural pressure that complemented political lobbying.

The Brexit Opportunity

The tampon tax campaign faced a significant obstacle: EU VAT regulations that required minimum tax rates on certain products. But Brexit provided an unexpected opportunity to address the issue without challenging European law.

In 2016, as Brexit negotiations began, the tampon tax became a symbol of the regulatory freedom that leaving the EU might provide. Pro-Brexit politicians, eager to demonstrate concrete benefits of independence, began supporting tampon tax abolition.

This created a strange political alliance between feminist campaigners and Brexit supporters, united around the principle that British women shouldn't be taxed for biological necessities. The petition's 320,000 signatures provided democratic legitimacy for this unlikely coalition.

The Economic Impact Assessment

As the campaign gained momentum, detailed economic analysis revealed the tampon tax's broader implications. The £43 million annual revenue represented a significant burden on low-income women, who spent proportionally more of their income on sanitary products.

Research by the Women's Budget Group calculated that the average woman paid £200 in tampon tax over her lifetime—money that could have been spent on other necessities or saved for education and housing. For women in poverty, this represented a cruel additional burden on those already struggling with basic needs.

The campaign also highlighted "period poverty"—the reality that many women couldn't afford sanitary products at current prices. The 5% tax made this problem worse, effectively penalizing poverty through the tax system.

The Parliamentary Drama

The petition's success in generating media attention forced Parliament to confront its own institutional sexism. During heated debates, male MPs repeatedly demonstrated their ignorance about women's basic biological needs, creating viral moments that further energized the campaign.

In one infamous exchange, Conservative MP Nadine Dorries challenged male colleagues: "How many of you have ever bought a packet of sanitary towels or tampons? Put your hands up." The deafening silence that followed perfectly illustrated why discriminatory policies had persisted for decades.

The debates revealed how parliamentary procedure itself marginalized women's concerns. The tampon tax had never been seriously discussed because women's health issues were considered too sensitive or embarrassing for public debate by male-dominated institutions.

The Unexpected Resistance

While public support for ending the tampon tax was overwhelming, the campaign faced sophisticated resistance from Treasury officials concerned about setting precedents for tax exemptions. Internal documents later revealed fears that exempting sanitary products would open the door to tax relief campaigns for other "necessity" items.

This resistance exposed the gendered nature of tax policy decision-making. Items traditionally used by men—razors, condoms, even Viagra—had secured favorable tax treatment, while women's necessities remained taxed as luxuries.

The campaign also faced opposition from some feminist quarters who worried that focusing on tax rates distracted from broader issues of gender inequality. These critics argued that the £43 million saved would be insignificant compared to the gender pay gap or cuts to women's services.

The Victory and Its Lessons

On January 1, 2021, the tampon tax was finally abolished, making sanitary products VAT-free for the first time since the tax was introduced in 1973. The campaign had taken five years, but it had achieved something that seemed impossible when Laura Coryton launched her petition from her university dorm room.

The victory's significance extended beyond the immediate tax relief. It demonstrated how digital petitions could make visible forms of discrimination that had been hidden by institutional blindness and male dominance in policy-making.

More importantly, the campaign established a new model for feminist activism that combined online organizing with parliamentary lobbying and media strategy. The 320,000 petition signatures provided democratic legitimacy that politicians couldn't ignore, while celebrity support and social media campaigns created cultural pressure for change.

The Broader Democratic Implications

The tampon tax campaign revealed several crucial insights about petition-based democracy:

Visibility Matters: Successful petitions don't just oppose policies—they make invisible problems visible to public debate.

Personal Experience Trumps Abstract Arguments: The campaign succeeded because every woman could relate to its immediate impact, creating authentic grassroots support that couldn't be dismissed as astroturfing.

Institutional Blindness Creates Opportunities: Discriminatory policies persist not through malicious intent but through institutional structures that exclude affected voices. Petitions can exploit this blindness by forcing public attention on overlooked issues.

Cross-Party Appeal: The most successful petitions transcend traditional political boundaries by focusing on shared experiences rather than ideological positions.

The Unfinished Revolution

While the tampon tax victory was significant, it also highlighted the limitations of petition-based change. The campaign took five years to achieve what should have been a simple administrative correction, revealing how slowly democratic institutions respond to obvious injustices.

The campaign's success also raised broader questions about tax fairness that remain unresolved. Why are children's clothes tax-free while adult women's clothes face the full VAT rate? Why do luxury yachts receive favorable tax treatment while basic necessities for working families don't?

"The tampon tax campaign was just the beginning," argues Laura Coryton, now a women's rights advocate. "It showed that discriminatory policies can be changed through sustained pressure, but it also revealed how many other inequalities are hiding in plain sight."

The Model for Future Campaigns

The tampon tax petition established several principles that continue to guide successful campaigns:

Start with the Obvious: The most powerful petitions address injustices that seem absurd once they're made visible.

Build Broad Coalitions: Success requires support that crosses traditional political and class boundaries.

Use Multiple Platforms: Digital petitions work best when combined with traditional media, celebrity support, and parliamentary lobbying.

Maintain Sustained Pressure: Policy change takes time, requiring campaigns that can maintain momentum over years rather than months.

Make It Personal: Abstract policy arguments fail where personal experience succeeds.

The Democratic Dividend

The tampon tax campaign's ultimate success lay not just in the £43 million saved, but in demonstrating that institutional discrimination could be challenged and defeated through sustained democratic pressure. For the 320,000 who signed Laura Coryton's petition, it proved that ordinary people could force extraordinary change.

The campaign also established important precedents about who gets heard in British democracy. By centering women's voices and experiences, it challenged the male-dominated assumptions that had shaped tax policy for decades.

Most importantly, it showed that digital democracy could address real-world inequalities when the conditions were right: clear injustice, broad coalition, sustained pressure, and political opportunity.

For young women today who will never pay tax on sanitary products, the tampon tax campaign represents democracy working as it should—slowly, imperfectly, but ultimately decisively.

Next week: How a petition about library closures exposed the £2 billion local government funding crisis that threatens Britain's public services.

References

1. HM Revenue & Customs. (2015). VAT Guide: Reduced Rate and Zero Rate Items. London: HMRC.
2. Coryton, L. (2015). Stop Taxing Periods. Period [Online petition]. Change.org. Retrieved from www.change.org
3. Osborne, G. (2015, November 12). Tampon Tax Statement. House of Commons Hansard, Column 892.
4. European Commission. (2016). VAT Rates Applied in the Member States of the European Union. Brussels: EC Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union.
5. Campbell, R. (2017). "Gender and Political Representation in the Digital Age." Political Studies, 65(4), 912-928.
6. Women's Budget Group. (2016). The Cost of Periods: Women's Economic Burden from Menstruation. London: WBG.
7. Miller, M. (2016, March 8). Tampon Tax Debate. House of Commons Hansard, Column 234.
8. Eagle, A. (2016, March 8). Opposition Response to Tampon Tax. House of Commons Hansard, Column 241.
9. Dorries, N. (2016, March 8). Parliamentary Exchange on Tampon Tax. House of Commons Hansard, Column 267.
10. Freedom of Information Request FOI 2017/156. (2017). Treasury Internal Correspondence on VAT Exemptions. HM Treasury.
11. Plan International UK. (2017). Break the Barriers: Girls' Experiences of Menstruation in the UK. London: Plan International UK.
12. HM Treasury. (2021). Finance Act 2021: VAT Changes. London: HMSO.
13. House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee. (2019). Menstruation and the Workplace. London: House of Commons.
14. Office for Budget Responsibility. (2020). Tax by Tax, Spend by Spend: VAT Revenue Analysis. London: OBR.
15. Coryton, L. (2021). Period: It's About Bloody Time. London: Harper Collins.