I’d recommend you read Rachel Sylvester’s column in today’s Times. In it, she identifies a split between David Cameron and George Osborne on recognising marriage in the tax system. Cameron’s extremely keen on the idea, and wants to reintroduce the married couple’s allowance. Osborne, on the other hand, isn’t and doesn’t. Here’s the key passage:
It’s difficult to know what to make of any such split. Of course, it’s noteworthy that “there is now a real tension about a tax policy” between Cameron and Osborne. But that tension is unlikely, by itself, to put an end to their relationship.“Mr Osborne disagrees. For him, it is not the State’s job to tell people how to live their lives. He would prefer to use scarce Treasury resources to support parents, whatever family structure they are in, than to reward a childless millionaire hedge fund manager who happens to be married to a lady who likes to lunch. He is concerned that the Tories will alienate voters if they appear to stigmatise single mothers and cohabiting couples. ‘There is a substantial disagreement,’ one insider says. ‘It’s hard to see a way through.'”
It could, though, herald a pandemic of similar splits throughout Tory ranks. With “nudging” now the idea du jour in Conservative circles, every policy will increasingly be interrogated on whether it’s a permissible “nudge” or an all-too-hefty “push”. It’s a useful criterion. But, as the split over marriage demonstrates, few cases are clear-cut. Meaning there’s plenty of scope for disagreement.
Comments