A LABOUR candidate in the upcoming General Election refused to back a bid to challenge Keir Starmer on his support for the two-child benefit cap and the rape clause, The National can reveal.
Councillor Kirsteen Sullivan, who hopes to become the MP for Bathgate and Linlithgow after the next election, refused to back efforts to get a Scottish council to send a letter to the Labour leader asking for his backing in their campaign against the policy.
Starmer found himself under fire last summer after he said a Labour government would not scrap the two-child benefit cap.
The rape clause refers to an exemption in the two-child benefit cap which allows mothers to claim benefits for a third child – only if they can prove they were conceived as a result of rape.
When it was introduced in 2017, then-leader of Scottish Labour Kezia Dugdale (below) described the policy as “barbaric”.
But last week, Labour’s candidate in a key target seat abstained on an SNP motion at a meeting of West Lothian Council, which set out plans to write to both DWP Secretary Mel Stride and Starmer on the policy.
Councillors voted to write to the DWP calling for the two-child policy to be scrapped and to Labour asking for the party’s support.
READ MORE: Labour to impose two-child benefit cap 'more fairly' than Tories, Keir Starmer says
Sullivan, who will challenge Martyn Day for the Bathgate and Linlithgow seat at this year’s General Election, has had her “feminist” credentials challenged over her stance.
The new Bathgate and Linlithgow seat is among 24 Labour target seats in Scotland, according to the site LabourList.
Janet Campbell, the leader of the SNP group on West Lothian Council, called Sullivan’s refusal to back the motion “disgraceful”.
She told The National: “I find it incomprehensible that a Labour councillor and a parliamentary candidate who claims to be a feminist should not have supported this motion.
“For somebody to call themselves a feminist and refuse to support this motion, as I say, it’s incomprehensible, it’s contradictory in the extreme.
“I’m sure that she will be attempting to sway female voters in particular, who may have voted or have voted SNP in recent years. I’m sure she will be trying to communicate with females in particular and encourage them to go back to Labour.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer mocks Labour critics in two-child benefits cap row
“I’m afraid her stance on this, of all things, is absolutely and utterly disgraceful and will not appeal to working-class women in the Linlithgow and east Falkirk area.”
Sullivan said she and her Labour colleagues in West Lothian believed the two-child limit and the rape clause should be scrapped when approached for comment.
She referred us to her contribution in last week’s session and accused the SNP of refusing the offer of a composite motion which would seen the council write to Starmer (above) asking for a commitment to a review of Universal Credit in its entirety and that he gave consideration to scrapping the two child benefit.
Speaking during the debate, Sullivan said: “I don’t think that anybody should be surprised to hear that my colleagues and myself are in favour of scrapping the limits on people who are entitled to claim and, in particular, think it’s abhorrent and that women have to prove that they’ve been raped.
“I think most people would find that an indignity too far.”
She went on to accuse the SNP of playing politics.
“I would have hoped that the SNP group could have supported a composite here but unfortunately it seems politics has taken precedence,” Sullivan said.
Scottish Labour did not respond to a request for comment.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel