The reason
given by the Shadow Secretary of State for supporting the so-called lockstep
struck me as a curious one. He said:
“We agree with the Government that the
principle of progressivity ought to be retained, which is why we agree, broadly
speaking, with the notion of the lockstep, tying together those bands.”
I suspect that a
Labour politician’s public agreement that Tory policy on income tax supports
progressivity will come as a surprise to many, not least within his own
party. Perhaps my memory about the
disagreement over whether the highest rate of tax should be 40p, 45p, or 50p is
just an illusion.
But the basis
of his argument seems to go further than that.
It is implicit in supporting the lockstep on that basis that he believes
that the wicked evil Tories in London (which is a rough translation of the
usual Labour description of them) are more likely to maintain progressivity in
income tax than any conceivable government which might come to power in Wales.
It’s a very
curious thing to believe.
Posts
2 comments:
Another curious thing is the way Owen Smith emphasised how a referendum would only be triggered IF Wales secured fair funding i.e. Barnett reform. We'll they would be in power by definition and therefore able to reform it! You couldn't make it up.
So three groups in Welsh Labour now,
One supporting Tax powers with the lockstep
One supporting Tax powers without
And one opposing Tax powers entirely.
They could have put it to a conference vote. But of course Parties don't do this anymore.
Post a Comment