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.

What was she meant to do? If she’d stayed away there would have been a MASSIVE deal made of it. She arrived upset (and Lindsay Hoyle is an utter bastard so fresh off a bad interaction with him on top of anything else would be awful) and then instead of being allowed to maintain her composure however she could, her appearance was picked at by the Leader of the Opposition, which was just unkindness. I’d have nothing to say about questions being asked about her keeping her job - that’s politics - but the personal comments weren’t necessary at all.

Totally agree that the idea that tears are the worst thing ever is outdated misogyny. We should be way beyond the point of deeming acceptable professional behaviour to be that of a man with a public school upbringing - frustrating that we’re still stuck there.

The point is if she goes, the PM often goes shortly after, and then we get Ange. The only bright side to that is that then Labour will be unquestionably unelectable for another generation.

I couldn't give a shit about what colour KB is. That's got nothing to do with it. She should have backed off. For all we know, someone in RR's life could have died.

Rotten thread.

It's mostly about the people claiming that male politicians would neeever cry in public.

Edit: And the public's response to male tears.

It's not about misogyny. It's about professionalism and being tough enough to do a tough job. Her job is impossible but she wanted it and crying certainly made everything worse.

It was Starmer’s answer that set Reeves off. For the same reason it did the markets. All this Kemi attacking is not it. Starmer had just jeered she’d be out which is nasty.

If she hadn’t shown up for PMQs the day after the government was utterly humiliated she would have been pilloried as well no matter what the reason.

The misogyny is defining tears as unprofessional. Why is showing emotion unprofessional? That’s only because professional has been defined and owned by people who don’t cry easily. Tears in themselves don’t stop anyone doing a job well. They’re purely a physical function. We don’t call someone unprofessional for sneezing in a meeting.

‘Look at her. She looks utterly miserable.’

Doubtful the resignation will be today because they're launching their 10 year NHS plan so won't want anything to detract from that. They will probably be hoping this will distract slightly from yesterday's debacle. There seems to be yet another twist to the story with reporting of an argument with a senior colleague in addition to the issue with Lindsay Hoyle. It all points to a very fractured party lacking in any leadership. Time for Starmer to get his house in order.

I agree. Moments earlier she was shown on camera pointing and smiling at Badenoch.

I think she should resign for her own sake and well being. The images of her sobbing on the front bench will haunt her. The problem is she didn't just cry at work ( most of us have done that), she cried in front of the full glare of tv cameras which rightly or wrongly is a terrible look for the government, hardly promotes strength and stability. Don't know why she didn't excuse herself, can only guess she was so upset she wasn't thinking straight, again not a good look.

Rachel is in top level Government as a professional adult she should have made the decision not to enter the chamber yesterday but unfortunately for her she did. She was for whatever reason upset before entering and now needs to resign.

Again, she went in because if she hadn’t the story would be that she wasn’t there. And there would be multiple threads on here and press stories about her absence and what it meant. Her not going in would not have been a neutral act.

I agree if she hadn't have turned up there would have been gossip and questions asked but this was a much better option than showing her clearly shattered and upset on national tv.

They could have put out a statement saying she had personal problems or an emergency. The backlash wouldn't have been as bad as this.

The scenes yesterday were not nice to see at all. The woman was completely broken.

I watched yesterday's PMQs and witnessed it. I even rewinded it. Badenoch is a bully.

If you think a statement like that would have stopped the speculation you’re a stranger to the internet. Her aim was clearly to make it through - she only had to sit there after all - which would have felt like the only option to take to prevent conspiracies spiralling.

They didn’t. They promised a full review of PIP with the full consultation and participation of disabled people and their representative organisations to redesign the benefit and ensure a fairer, more transparent and sustainable benefit which would properly assess and support their needs.

What they didn’t say was that before that consultation had even got off the ground, and a full year before the results would be analysed, they would launch a media campaign to deliberately conflate PIP support with out of work benefits so that they could more easily introduce a cynical cut aimed at the most vulnerable, and designed to remove support in order to save money. All of this with absolutely no impact assessment and no thought for the consequences to disabled people.

In the frenzy of rhetoric about cost cutting and allusions to abuse of the system they also conveniently forgot to mention that the kind of support the cut would remove was for people with care needs whose PIP award enabled unpaid family carers who looked after them to claim carers allowance. Once PIP support was lost, carers allowance would follow and many carers would no longer be available as they would have to work or increase their hours to make up the shortfall. So the cost of this lost care provision would be passed on to social care, which costs considerably more to provide. So the savings made from benefits would be lost to the increased cost of social care.

The MP’s who have come in for much vilification in the press and media, were actually only doing their jobs - acting in the best interests of their disabled constituents and holding the government to the commitment it made to them. The real shame of the utter shit show that was the vote doesn’t lie with them. It lies with the government for not recognising that the rebel MP’s were doing what the electorate says it wants - listening to and acting on behalf of their constituents - and putting so much pressure on them to back down from doing what they knew to be right.

Sure, and she couldn't hack it when she got there.

We all listened to her boasting about how she was going to be so much better than before and fix the economy.

That hubris was vain and silly, and completely unnecessary.

Now it's all inevitably gone badly she is blubbering away, her inflated ego having deserted her now.

Pride comes before a fall .

So why did you start this churlish thread in the first place?

Save your pity now, why don't you?

Oh give over. Hyperbolic reactions like yours is a sign of immaturity and lack of judgement.

If she does have a personal crisis on top of her professional problems she may well have to resign or make a fairly detailed statement to day.
Can you imagine the Weekend papers if it isn't clarified soon, speculation and wild ideas by no-hope Party Members including some she thought of as friends.
Speculation about remaining or resigning, speculation about who will/might replace her.
We may want to sympathise but certain things have to be done in that very rough game called Politics.

Your misogyny depresses me but nothing new in political comment. I’m astonished that any women go into politics tbh.

Blimey, all the Labour supporters suddenly think it's churlish to expect the resignation of a poor performing MP.