ON the parliamentary sweepstake of when Labour would suffer its first rebellion, I don’t think anyone had the second day of the King’s Speech debate.

And it is odds-on that no one expected seven Labour MPs lose the whip for rebelling so soon.

The issue was the child benefit cap.

Introduced back in 2015, it sought to address the issue that having multiple children in poverty appeared financially incentivised.

If having one child in poverty brought with it a child benefit of around £3,000, the argument went, then having more children brought more benefit, ad infinitum.

Cap the benefit at just two children — the policy brought in then and still in place today — and it would incentivise constraint.

Added to that is the argument that if those not receiving benefits, who pay taxes to finance all the welfare budget, exercise financial control and restraint whilst deciding how big their family would be, why shouldn’t others?

It’s a fair argument but the other side say what about those who start off financially sound but hit life’s rocky shores.

And importantly is it fair to restrain support from a child who has no fault in this argument, their parents being the ones who ignored the implications?

Both sides of the argument are reasonable and have their merits.

And for Labour it is a policy to end child poverty (in itself, a near-impossibility as poverty is a relative measure, being defined as household income below 60 per cent of median income).

At the heart of all this is, of course, the idea of a benefit culture.

Sir William Beveridge wrote his groundbreaking report on this just after the war.

Quite a tedious read but of huge importance, its core tenet is that welfare benefits must never be an incentive not to work, rather be set at a level that incentivises work.

We all agree that ending poverty is a goal that we strive for.

But should that be by building our economy and providing opportunities for people to work whilst providing support to make work easier (for example, childcare facilities)?

Or should it be by simply paying people not to work and to have more children?

The answer lies, I guess, somewhere in the middle.

But Sir Keir Starmer has now discovered what it’s like to be in charge.

His first rebellion, and his surprisingly draconian reaction, demonstrates it’s much trickier to run the country — and his party — than he perhaps thought.