Originally published @ 10:38 pm, Mon 4th Jan 2010
And lo! Just hours after dismissing Labour's report in 11 seconds flat, David Cameron appeared to change his position on recognising marriage within the tax system .
Paul Waugh from the Evening Standard reported -
The £4.9 billion 'cost' of the married tax breaks is based on the idea that Cameron will copy the IDS policy ...
[Cameron] told the BBC that he could not guarantee a Conservative government would be able to offer a tax break to married couples, despite having personally supported such a move.
"It's something within a parliament I would definitely hope to do".
That sounded like a policy in real danger of being watered down to the point of tokenism. It sounded like a pledge downgraded to an aspiration, a policy downgraded to a 'hope'.
Given that the Tory leader has made clear publicly and privately just how passionate he is about marriage, this was one tax cut that colleagues was felt to be a certainty.
The Tories counter-dossier ... also states: "We have pledged [note the word 'pledge' there] to recognise marriage in the tax system. There are various different ways in which that could be done, which may cost much less".
So is it a 'pledge' or a 'hope'? I'm confused. And again, if the actual policy costs 'much less', then how can the party boast to Middle England that it is taking decisive action to help marriage? ...
What are pledges worth with the Tories? Like pledging to a referendum on the European Union Lisbon Treaty, despite being warned such a referendum would be meaningless once all countries had signed up.
And Paul Waugh goes on to say - “Having backed off his environmentalism, there is a danger that this latest revision will leave supporters asking: well, what does David Cameron really believe in?”
Not a great start for someone who was lecturing us only 2 days ago on being candid.
Comments