Going on the evidence of the Daily Mail’s behaviour over the festive season, the answer to the question is not looking good…
On the ‘Betwixtmas’ weekend, I happened to find myself in WHSmith’s in Bournemouth. Walking up the stairs from the book department, I could hear a family near the newspaper stand, which is next to where the stairs join the main floor. They were reading that day’s Daily Mail headline with obvious dismay in their voices: “LABOUR’S £400 TAX HIT TO YOUR HOLIDAY.” No wonder they were worried. The headline gives the impression family holidays are about to cost us £400 extra. Online, the headlines were even more melodramatic: “PASSENGERS TO BE HIT BY £400 TAX HIT ON FAMILY HOLIDAYS” (notice the double use of “hit” there) and “GROUNDED BY AIR TAX, OUR FAMILY HOLIDAYS.”
This is emotional manipulation of the worst kind based on truth-twisting.
According to the government’s website, Air Passenger Duty (APD) was introduced in the November 1993 budget of then Conservative Prime Minister John Major and came into effect during November 1994. It is due on all departures from UK airports. The rationale for the new tax was threefold:
- Raise revenue for public services
- Address the perceived under-taxation of air travel
- Encourage more sustainable modes of transport
Why is this relevant? Well, the Daily Mail has taken the new rate of APD due on a flight to Florida at the reduced rate (typically economy class) as outlined in Rachel Reeves’s October 2024 budget, quadrupled it, and come up with the £400 figure for “a typical family of four.”
Is this correct?
It could be correct in some specific cases, with three caveats. The first is that the headline creates the impression that a typical family of four will pay £400 extra on their 2025 holiday, whereas the tax increase is between £28 and £56, as the Daily Mail’s “typical” family of four would already be paying £352 APD on four adult-rated flights to Florida. “Adult-rated” is key here, because the second caveat is that the Daily Mail’s “typical” family isn’t particularly typical at all. It assumes both children are older than 16, since children who are sixteen years of age or under on the date of flight pay no tax at all. In other words, 89 per cent of the age range of children from 0 to 18 years old, pay £0 in APD, so the Daily Mail’s use of the word “typical” is dubious. The third caveat is that the impression this will impact this year’s family holiday, created by referring to the introduction of the increase in APD in the 2024 October budget, is also false, since the new rates don’t come in until 1 April 2026.
How is Air Passenger Duty (APD) calculated?
APD is determined by a range of factors including the number of seats on the plane, their width, and the tonnage of the plane. It is divided into three categories: reduced rate, standard rate, and higher rate. To give a picture of what that means in practical terms, these categories roughly correspond to economy class on a commercial flight, any other class on a commercial flight, such as business or first class, and any flight by a private jet with fewer than 19 seats, respectively.
Within each category, there are four bands. This is where distance comes into play. The four bands are: domestic; Band A between 0 and 2,000 miles; Band B between 2,001 and 5,500 miles, and Band C in excess of 5,500 miles. Distances are measured from the centre of London to the capital city of the country of destination. These bands have changed over time. For example, in 2015 they were simplified from bands A, B, C, and D to just bands A and B, then in 2023 the “domestic” and “C” bands were introduced.
Since 2010, inflation has risen 49.7 per cent in total, with almost half that inflation occurring since Q3 2019. Increases to APD by Tory Chancellors have lagged inflation, particularly for private jets. The increases announced by Rachel Reeves are intended to bring APD in line with past inflation. Even with her increases, the APD due on all bands except B is still lower than inflation 2010-2024 in the domestic, reduced, and standard rate categories. Of course, those aren’t the examples the Daily Mail has chosen to draw its example from.
Why has Rachel Reeves hit Band B flights – those between 2,001 and 5,000 miles – so hard? Possibly because pollution from Band B flights was up 28 per cent in 2023 (versus 16 per cent for domestic flights and 13 per cent for short-haul flights, which include all European and some North African destinations). Sometimes the tax code is used to disincentivise behaviour and this looks to be an example of that. In July 2022, the Conservative government (then led by Boris Johnson) announced a Jet Zero Strategy (JZS) which committed the UK to never crossing 2019 flight pollution levels again. The JZS is part of the UK’s legally binding net zero emissions law, so the current government is bound by it until such time as parliament decides to repeal it. Worryingly, the UK had already returned to 89 per cent of 2019 flight pollution levels by the end of 2023, and there are fears 2024 will have seen another increase.
What is the Daily Mail up to?
The above may be considered too technical, too boring, or simply too much information for most people. That’s what the Daily Mail relies on to craft narratives that cause worry, unhappiness, dissatisfaction, a sense of grievance, and above all, anger. The Daily Mail is being exceedingly cruel. Life is difficult enough without the Daily Mail going out of its way to make the public think that it’s worse than it is and to manipulate them into feeling negative emotions.
On this occasion, the Daily Mail has based its story on the work of the ultra-right wing ‘think tank’ and lobbying group The Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA), which presents itself as a pressure group for a ‘low-tax society’, but which anyone could be forgiven for thinking is opposed to the payment of tax and the provision of public services those taxes fund. It was founded by Matthew Elliott, former CEO of Vote Leave and founder of Conservative Friends of Russia, now in the House of Lords. Opaquely-funded think tanks like these are toxic, exerting an inordinate amount of influence over our politics with zero accountability and poisoning our public discourse unhindered by pumping out misinformation.
How do they get away with it? Technically, for a family of four where both children are aged at least 16 years and one day, it is correct that the APD such a family will pay will be £408. However, that’s an increase of £14 a head not £408, it will not impact most families, and not this year. It may be worth complaining to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). Bear in mind IPSO is run by the press, has no teeth, and will likely come back with a finding of caveat emptor – buyer beware. In other words, it will put the onus on the public to read the Daily Mail’s article carefully and unpick the subterfuge.
Do you want to be happier in the 2025?
By now, you may have realised that the Daily Mail does not have the public’s best interests at heart and does not care how much distress it causes. It will almost certainly continue to be naughty not nice in 2025, pushing the agenda of its non-UK resident ‘French’ owner, Lord Rothermere. Reading the Daily Mail ought to come with a government health warning. A positive step we can all make to feel happier this year is to take any story we read in the press, and particularly in the Daily Mail, with a pinch of salt. How does it make us feel as we read it? If it incites feelings of anger, dismay, or anxiety, then we need to distance ourselves from it, and find out from more reliable sources if there is any truth to the article. Encourage family members and friends to do the same.
Often there will be a grain of truth that has been so twisted, as in this Daily Mail £400 hit to holidays story, as to have become at best misleading and at worst a pack of lies. Too often, our press seeks to manipulate rather than to inform, and the only way to combat that is to not give press stories credence and to reserve trust for more reliable sources. Remember, Wikipedia no longer accepts the Daily Mail as a source, because it is full of fabrications. Better sources to consult include:
- Cabinet Briefing papers;
- Reports by Parliamentary Select Committees;
- Scholarly, peer-reviewed articles and books;
- Trade or professional articles or books, and
- Sources of primary data.
