What time do you think Rachel will hand in her notice tomorrow?

[Neverendingwashingbasket]

I think if it's not in already tonight then it will be before 10am tomorrow.

@EasternStandard Apologies, you'll have to point me to where I said that?

If she tried putting some effort into preparing for PMQs her position might not be in doubt.

I simply don't believe you have more insight into why she was upset, than she does.

Obviously not. But the statement about ‘personal reasons’ was clearly spin to try and shut down discussion.

You have no way of knowing that.

That just circles back to my point.

You have absolutely no facts to support the idea that this was a lie. It certainly isn't clear it was to me.

Yep I agree with this! The woman is doing a tough job and balancing goodness knows what. Regardless of whether you agree with her politics a bit of empathy doesn’t hurt!

The speaker was attempting to limit the amount of time RR takes to answer questions, using irrelevant padding. This limits the number of questions which can be put ( obviously useful if you are in a bit of a jam).

That is his job, to ensure the smooth running of the Chamber in debates, and enforce the rules of the House. The rule should apply to everyone, and there is little evidence ( to put it politely) that this Speaker favours Opposition Parties.

Or Kemi saw that her political opponent had had to back down on a major policy that was crucial to their budget plans due to a massive rebellion in their ranks and was responding to the opportunity that gave to raise questions about the chancellor’s performance. Rachel’s upset was indicative of trouble in the Labour top team that was worth highlighting.

The opposition hold the government to account by highlighting failures to the electorate or by raising questions about performance or policies in the minds of MPs across the chamber.

Neither do you. That is the point.

Do you want Starmer as leader?

Are you saying political spin are lies? Or are they ways of presenting the truth? Being upset is personal so can be called a ‘personal matter’ regardless of its cause,

Have you followed what’s been going on with Labour over the period before she cried? The infighting and hollowed bill which lands back to Reeves at budget.

Yes, for the second time. Very closely. Which is the precise reason I don't have any reason to doubt that the tears were for personal reason.

As I've now said more than once, the infighting and public vitriol wasn't new yesterday. Rachel Reeves wasn't even the architect of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. She'd have been in tears long before now if it were purely work related.

I'm saying you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that this was political spin. Quite plainly and on more than one occasion now.

I don't care if he is or isn't to be honest. Nor is it relevant to ripping a human being to shreds for showing emotion.

Why? Why do you think she’s not upset by the sheer stress she’s under from her own party. Surely you can imagine a bit what it’s like to need those policies and have colleagues override them. And whatever arguing and shitshow went along with that.

It’s not about the architect of the bill. It’s about needing headroom and cuts. You can see why she does need that?

It is relevant as that is likely why he couldn’t even answer which sent the markets off. He was too busy taking personal and jeering swipes at KB.

yes agree

And I am saying you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that this was not political spin. Quite plainly and on more than one occasion now.

Shall we stop going round in circles now?

We can if you like., doesn't change the truth.

We have one fact - we were told there was a personal matter.

We have no facts to counter this.

So your assertion that is political spin, or a lie, is nothing more than your opinion.

All of that aside, feeling no sympathy for someone crying - whether for personal or work related matters - is cold & unfeeling.

I see no ‘ripping a human being to shreds for showing emotion’. Everyone can understand why she might. Posters are critical of her performance as. Chancellor - something that is directly impacting every one of us.

One fact. No, one statement. They are hardly going to make a statement on it being Labour Party imploding into fights.

On, we are still playing are we?

We have one fact - we were told there was a personal matter.

We have no facts to counter this or prove that personal matter was not directly related to her role as Chancellor.

So your assertion that it is not political spin, or a lie, is nothing more than your opinion.

There is a difference between having no sympathy and criticising someone’s performance in their job. I have a lot of sympathy for any politician trying their best to juggle voters unreasonable demands, but that doesn’t mean I should not be free to criticise their actions. Fortunately we still live in a democracy where our politicians can expect to be held to account, regardless of how upset they are.

Some of the participants here seem to have missed their vocation. They'd have been ideally suited to knitting under a guillotine.

Of course pro Labour never criticise female Tory politicians.