It is absolutely ridiculous to throw out the slur that Labour want to keep children in poverty simply because they didn't lift the 2-child benefit cap within their first 18 days in office after 5,174 days in opposition. One does not imply the other - that's a lazy, lazy argument. Look at the full context: 1. This was a vote on the Kings Speech, the first and most high profile vote since Labour took office (and for a long time to come). A rebellion was obviously therefore going to be deeply embarrassing - and the rebels were absolutely aware of that. 2. Labour ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility. This was clear as daylight to every Labour candidate. It's not some wild swerve foisted on them after the election was won. 3. Labour are working at speed to produce a full picture of the economic situation the Tories left us in. That should be published before the summer recess. Things may look different within days. (For better or worse? We'll have to await the report.) 4. Labour have said they are reviewing concrete action to alleviate child poverty. Are the rebels claiming they're lying? 5. Senior Labour figures have indicated the 2-child benefit cap is potentially part of the wider review. 6. This was an SNP amendment. Supporting it was pure performative politics. It was never going to pass in a trillion years. 7. To come back to where we started, not voting for the amendment is not the same as seeking to keep children in poverty, wanting to keep children in poverty, planning to keep children in poverty, delighting in keeping children in poverty, or whatever other emotional framing lazy people choose to resort to instead of making a logical analytical argument. A painful related truth: the hard Left of the party has a problem. They need to stay visible to stay relevant. It's like sharks have to keep swimming or they die. (That's a metaphor. It doesn't mean I think they're sharks. Sigh.) They therefore thrive on outrage farming just as much as those on the other extreme of politics, even though their actual political views are poles apart. One way to increase that visibility very quickly is to pick opportunities to have highly visible fights with the core party and the leadership. That's what happened last night. Nothing more. Nothing less. No nefarious plot to keep children in poverty (or "starving" as the even more emotionally manipulative put it). Starmer had two choices: 1) Let the rebellion go 2) Take strict action 1) would have given every group and faction within Labour the green light to start creating their own version of the ERG, Common Sense Group, or whatever they wanted to call themselves. Soon, the party would be as riven as the Tories were. Imagine herding those cats for the next 5 years! Instead, by doing 2), Starmer called the bluff of people who knew exactly what they were doing. Did Starmer's action indicate Labour won't lift the cap? No. It told us nothing of the sort. Did Starmer's action indicate Labour are fine with child poverty? No. It told us nothing of the sort. If in a few months - around the Autumn statement or shortly thereafter - Labour are still grinding their gears on child poverty without any progress, then you have the right to be aggrieved. But 18 days into their term of office, and after all the clear signals they're trying to do the right thing as swiftly as prudence allows? Get over yourself.