A FORMER Labour MP and life peer has been slammed for saying defence was more worthy of spending than axing the two-child cap.
John Woodcock, styled as Lord Walney, wrote an article in PoliticsHome on Friday arguing that Labour needed to prioritise defence spending over mending societal ills caused by the last Tory government.
The former Barrow-in-Furness MP wrote that the threat of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea "requires a major, sustained investment in the defence of the realm".
READ MORE: SNP demand apology as Labour set to 'finally admit' £20bn in cuts and tax hikes
He continued: "The government could hit its 2.5% [defence spending target] by 2028 – two years earlier than the last Tory government planned – if it chose to spend on defence the amount of money that it would cost to scrap the two-child benefit."
One Twitter/X user termed the article as a "rare ultra explicit 'bombs not bairns' spotted in the wild."
a rare ultra-explicit "bombs not bairns" spotted in the wild https://t.co/TJeX0gPlSp
— James Mackenzie (@mrjamesmack) July 26, 2024
Maggie Chapman MSP told The National in response to Woodcock's article: “There is no shortage of money, Labour have just decided in the first weeks of their government that lifting children out of poverty isn’t a priority for them.
"If they find that decision difficult to justify, then rather than ludicrously trying to blame Russia or North Korea, they should reverse it.”
"The bottom line is that Labour are making a political choice to continue a policy that punishes 1.6 million children and condemns hundreds of thousands to poverty."
READ MORE: Labour's Michael Shanks refuses to back £300 energy bill cut promise
"If we could hook a turbine up to Labour politicians, the speed at which they're spinning their shameful decision to continue the two child benefit cap would solve the world's energy problems overnight."
Woodcock resigned from Labour in July 2018, as an inquiry into sexual harassment he was alleged to have committed reached its conclusion.
After the allegations broke, he had the party whip withdrawn and his membership suspended.
He claimed the inquiry was politically motivated, and during his resignation said he believed the party had been taken over by the "hard Left" since Jeremy Corbyn gained the party leadership.
However, reporting in The Guardian quoted a senior party figure as saying that they "did not doubt the sincerity" of the allegations lodged against Woodcock.
Earlier in his article, Woodcock reiterated statements from the chief of the Army that "the country must be ready to fight a war within three years" due to the threat from Russia.
He went on to say that "this group of Labour leaders" can not afford to wish away the perceived threats facing the UK.
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