Spend on defence, not scrapping the two child benefit cap
3 min read
Beset by competing demands for action, President Kennedy famously told his party: “Others may confine themselves to debate, discussion, and that ultimate luxury – free advice. Our responsibility is one of decision – for to govern is to choose.”
Every word of JFK’s counsel should be heeded by the new Labour government and its newly elected MPs as ministers seek to prioritise scant resources in a country whose acute domestic issues are being overshadowed by ever darkening clouds of global conflict and instability.
A sense of urgency to right the wrongs inflicted on families by the last Conservative government has been the focus of the debate this week over the government’s legislative programme set out in the King’s speech. The small size of the rebellion on the amendment in the House of Commons urging the abolition of the two-child benefit cap evidently does not reflect the true strength of feeling from Labour MPs on this issue. Understandably so. These members of parliament represent communities in which entrenched deprivation is causing misery and holding so many back from reaching their true potential. They came into politics to fight for the least well off and removing this Tory measure would immediately lift many thousands of children out of poverty after years of economic standard in which families have seen their standard of living eroded.
Yet while it feels natural and right for MPs to make the case for measure that improve the quality of life of their constituents at home, this is surely a parliament that must temper its domestic wish list with difficult decisions to prioritise defence spending that protects our way of life from hostile states.
A fornight ago Prime Minister Keir Starmer was at the NATO summit assuring fellow world leaders that his commitment to raise defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP was “cast iron”. Last week defence secretary John Healey employed former NATO secretary-general Lord Robertson to lead a review warning of a “deadly quartet of nations increasingly working together” – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. And this week head of the army General Sir Roly Walker warned that the country must be ready to fight a war within three years, such is the scale of aggression from Putin.
This is a threat to our values and our people that requires major, sustained investment in the defence of the realm – a degree of focus not seen since the height of the Cold War in which the West was threatened by the spectre of communism. Yet this enormous, existential competing priority figure did not figure at all in the debate over whether the Treasury should immediately commit to the estimated £3.4 billion long term cost of reversing the benefit.
This is not a trivial sum. Figures supplied to me by the House of Lords Library for the King’s Speech debate yesterday (Thursday) shows that the government could hit its 2.5 per cent by 2028 – two years earlier than the last Tory government planned - if it chose to spend on defence the amount that it would cost to scrap the two-child benefit child.
The trade-off described above may not be quite as simple as that. And certainly, they are not an easy or comfortable set of choices to make. But this group of Labour leaders cannot wish away the terrifying global environment in which they have been given the responsibility of governing.
These domestic demands will continue to arise. But they should not be placed ahead of the crucial mission to build up our security. It is ultimately up to Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves to remind their MPs of the words of the party’s manifesto: ‘Labour’s first duty in government will be to keep our country safe’.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
