AS David Bowie famously sang: ch… ch… ch… ch… child poverty – oh wait.
For all the talk of change this week, Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party showed us that party politics is more important to them than reducing child poverty.
According to the IFS, the heinous two-child limit on child benefit has affected 1.6 million children. That is an increase of 100,000 on the year before. One in nine of all UK children. Worryingly, that number is expected to rise by quarter of a million next year, and by an extra half a million by 2029.
READ MORE: SNP implosion has been on the cards for years
It is one of the worst legacies the Tories have left behind. There should be no question of whether a Labour government would get rid out of it – especially given the explicit election promise to reduce child poverty – but here we are.
As the King announced Labour’s plan for government, it became clear there was to be no mention of removing the two-child limit on claiming child benefit. Of course, this also meant there would be no removal of the two-child-cap rape clause, which specifies that you will only receive child benefit for a third child if you can prove that child was the product of rape.
Given it was the SNP’s Alison Thewliss who discovered the policy in the small print of the 2015 Tory Budget in the first place, it should be of no surprise that the SNP would lay an amendment calling for its removal to the new Labour government’s plans this week. Not only did Starmer order his Labour MPs not to support the amendment, but he immediately suspended the seven MPs who did support it.
Starmer wants the public to think he is ruthless and honest. He has proved he is ruthless, but has he proved he is honest? The reason given to justify this lack of ambition is that the Government does not want to promise things it cannot deliver. Hypocritical, considering that is exactly how Starmer became leader of the Labour Party – by promising things he has no intention of delivering.
A Labour Prime Minister who has made one of his first acts to suspend Labour MPs for voting to reduce child poverty. During the election campaign, any suggestion that Scottish Labour MPs would fail to stand up to Starmer was dismissed as misinformation. Now the election is over – not even a month later – not a single Scottish Labour MP rebelled to vote to reduce child poverty. All because it was an SNP motion.
READ MORE: Mhairi Black: I understand why progressive left voters won't back SNP
Likewise, any pre-election suggestion that Labour were planning to continue Tory austerity was dismissed as false. The SNP warned that Labour’s plans would lead to either £18 billion of cuts to public services, or tax rises. Labour responded that this was nonsense and yet on Monday, the new Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is rumoured to be announcing a £20 billion-pound black hole in the public finances.
For the SNP, however, pointing and shouting, “we told you so” is not enough. It never will be enough. There must be an inspiring, ambitious and realistic alternative plan on offer. In 2015, the SNP were able to show the public a clear, logical and bold plan to invest in public services and embrace diversity. There was a clear anti-austerity argument to be made, and the SNP successfully and convincingly filled that space. Fast forward nearly 10 years and the same cannot be said.
The major advantage the SNP had in 2015 was that as the Scottish Government, they demonstrated that palpable change could be delivered via the Scottish Parliament with the removal of tuition fees; free prescriptions; free personal care for the elderly; and free bus travel for both the youngest and oldest.
Annual displays of competence from 2007 onwards elevated people’s perception of the Scottish Parliament. By mitigating some of the worst Westminster policies, such as the bedroom tax, the SNP also raised the expectations of what the Scottish Government can do.
This is the problem the SNP must now wrestle with. We know that having the full powers of a normal independent nation will empower any future government of Scotland to radically change Scotland, but what do we offer people in the meantime? The establishment of policies such as the Scottish Child Payment have been a game-changer in reducing the number of children in poverty in Scotland.
However, with Westminster holding the majority of welfare and spending powers, the Scottish Government cannot be expected to mitigate everything, but will have to get better at articulating why that is the case.
With so many recent own goals, the SNP have to dust themselves off, demonstrate basic competence and come back with a bold vision for what their priorities are.
The question is whether all that can be delivered by 2026.
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