Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable

In common with many parents across the country, here's a conversation that I have with my young daughter on a semi-regular basis (bear with me, this will take on some political relevance eventually).

Me: "So it's 15 minutes until your bedtime, you can either have a little bit of TV or do a jigsaw, not both."

Daughter: "Ummmm, I want to watch TV."

Me: "That's fine, but it's bed after that, you can't do a jigsaw as well."

Fast-forward 15 minutes.

Me: "Right, TV off now please, bedtime."

(Pause)

Daughter: "I want to do a jigsaw."

Now replace me with the government, the TV and jigsaw options with axing welfare cuts and scrapping the two-child cap, and my daughter with rebellious backbenchers.

Politics latest: Former Labour leader calls for wealth tax on assets above £10m

That is the tension currently present between Downing Street and Labour MPs. And my initial ultimatum is the messaging being pumped out from the government this weekend.

In essence: you've had your welfare U-turn, so there's no money left for the two-child cap to go as well.

As an aside - and before my inbox fills with angry emails lambasting me for using such a crude metaphor for policies that fundamentally alter the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society - yes, I hear you, and that's part of my point.

For many in Labour, this approach feels like the lives of their constituents are being used in a childish game of horse-trading.

So what can be done?

Well, the government could change the rules.

Altering the fiscal rules is - and will likely remain - an extremely unlikely solution. But as it happens, one of Labour's proverbial grandparents has just popped round with a different suggestion.

A wealth tax, Lord Neil Kinnock says, is the necessary outcome of the economic restrictions the party has placed on itself.

Ever the Labour storyteller, Lord Kinnock believes this would allow the government to craft a more compelling narrative about whose side this administration is on.

That could be valuable, given one of the big gripes from many backbench critics is that they still don't really understand what this prime minister stands for - and by extension, what all these "difficult decisions" are in aid of.

The downside is whether it will actually raise much money.

The super-rich may have lots of assets to take a slice from, but they also have expensive lawyers ready to find novel ways to keep their client's cash away from the prying eyes of the state.

Or, of course, they could just leave - as many are doing already.

In the short term, the future is a bit easier to predict.

If Downing Street is indeed now saying there is no money to scrap the two-child cap (after heavy briefing in the opposite direction just weeks ago), an almighty tantrum from the backbenches is inevitable.

And as every parent knows, the more you give in, the harder it becomes to hold the line.