Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

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

337 replies

Neverendingwashingbasket · 03/07/2025 00:03

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

OP posts:
Lioncub2020 · 03/07/2025 09:34

Dwimmer · 03/07/2025 09:33

Balancing the books is called ‘austerity’.

Err no. Balancing the books is basic common sense.

Candlefright · 03/07/2025 09:35

She is close to a breakdown. No job is worth feeling like this .

Germanyherewecome · 03/07/2025 09:36

EasternStandard · 03/07/2025 09:20

Reeves is finding this out. Karma for her own contempt.

Bloody hell. Needs reporting.

DorothyandtheWizard · 03/07/2025 09:37

lostinthesunshine · 03/07/2025 01:47

I am no fan of Labour (feeling a bit party-less at the moment). But gleeful speculation like this is disgusting. She was clearly deeply upset, and it’s been confirmed that it was over a personal matter.

Confirmed it was a personal matter.

If it was so personal and upsetting where was her judgement? You don't turn up for work if it's so personal you keep crying in public for the whole country to see but not offer any explanation.

Germanyherewecome · 03/07/2025 09:38

Love all the Tories enablers ignoring the fact that the country is in a state because of them. Brexit, austerity, you name it.

EasternStandard · 03/07/2025 09:41

Germanyherewecome · 03/07/2025 09:38

Love all the Tories enablers ignoring the fact that the country is in a state because of them. Brexit, austerity, you name it.

Love all the Labour enablers ignoring their own party’s failings.

Dwimmer · 03/07/2025 09:41

The issue with farms is that tax policies and general demand has driven up land prices so on paper farmers are millionaires. But the crops produced on that land do not produce anywhere near the returns that investing that land value elsewhere would. Many farmers work for well below the minimum wage. If families have to pay inheritance tax on the land value they would have to sell up as there would be no way they could sustain the debt from income. They would still have millions and just be sad they can no longer farm. No one else would be able to make a bigger income from growing food on that land either. BUT we as a country still need to eat and importing more and more of our food makes us more and more vulnerable.

EasternStandard · 03/07/2025 09:42

Germanyherewecome · 03/07/2025 09:36

Bloody hell. Needs reporting.

For what? If you smirk through announcements people impacted will feel similarly when you cry. It’s nothing to do with anything personal.

You can’t impact people’s lives and think they’ll not notice.

Dwimmer · 03/07/2025 09:42

Lioncub2020 · 03/07/2025 09:34

Err no. Balancing the books is basic common sense.

So you agree with austerity now then?

CatServant2020 · 03/07/2025 09:45

It's lovely to see a women's forum supporting women - oh no that's not what the post is about.

I think some of you need to take a long hard look at yourselves the amount of glee you're showing.

I'm not a supporter, I don't have high regard for most politicians.

You don't know what's going on in her life, something could have happened and also I'm one of these people who will cry from frustration, I wish I didn't but I do.

Also any decisions made wouldn't have been made by her alone, they'd have been made at a higher level. She's been thrown under the bus by the cabinet.

Anyway those of you taking part in the bitch fest carry on as I'm sure you will

BumpyWinds · 03/07/2025 09:48

My DH mentioned this when I got home last night as I'd not seen the news.

I'm not a fan of RR (in fact, I have a letter drafted to her to send about the impact her tax decisions have had on smaller businesses), but I was shocked at how she was yesterday. She didn't look herself at all and was so visibly upset, my first thought was "why on earth is she there?". I know it's important that MPs are in Parliament, but surely there's exceptions if you're ill? I don't think she was in any fit state to be there yesterday.

Anyone kicking someone when they're down like that is an appalling human.

I've never heard of Steven Flynn, but I wish there were more MP's that had his empathy.

queenofthesuburbs · 03/07/2025 09:53

I haven’t watched PMQs but what did Starmer do to make RR cry?

limescale · 03/07/2025 09:56

queenofthesuburbs · 03/07/2025 09:53

I haven’t watched PMQs but what did Starmer do to make RR cry?

It is reported that she was upset about a personal matter.

Happyher · 03/07/2025 09:56

A tad of misogyny in that heading. It’s not clever

DorothyandtheWizard · 03/07/2025 09:56

CatServant2020 · 03/07/2025 09:45

It's lovely to see a women's forum supporting women - oh no that's not what the post is about.

I think some of you need to take a long hard look at yourselves the amount of glee you're showing.

I'm not a supporter, I don't have high regard for most politicians.

You don't know what's going on in her life, something could have happened and also I'm one of these people who will cry from frustration, I wish I didn't but I do.

Also any decisions made wouldn't have been made by her alone, they'd have been made at a higher level. She's been thrown under the bus by the cabinet.

Anyway those of you taking part in the bitch fest carry on as I'm sure you will

Surely you're advocating double standards?

RR made a big play about being the first woman ever to be Chancellor.
She doesn't want and shouldn't have more sympathy than a man doing her job, who has a bad day for whatever reason and breaks down in a very public event.

If we make allowances as women, for another woman, that's not being supportive , it's saying women need more support than a man and it's patronising.

Bridport · 03/07/2025 10:00

EasternStandard · 03/07/2025 09:41

Love all the Labour enablers ignoring their own party’s failings.

Not ignoring, but rather being balanced, patient and not expecting them to work wonders and shit miracles after 14 years of Tory willful distruction.

Bridport · 03/07/2025 10:01

If we make allowances as women, for another woman, that's not being supportive , it's saying women need more support than a man and it's patronising.

It's not making allowances for women. It's making allowances for humans.

ruffler45 · 03/07/2025 10:04

An innocent who is/was completely out of her depth.

Politics is a tough gig..

Dwimmer · 03/07/2025 10:06

CunningLinguist2 · 03/07/2025 09:09

No, they haven’t. Equally wrong too.
Criticise a person’s politics by all means (Reeves AND Truss) but I for one never go for their looks, clothes, weight, lettuce shelf life etc (no, not even Boris…).

Also speculating when someone absolutely tanking the economy less than a month in the job by sheer incompetence of how the markets work, should go, and taking sweepstakes on someone crying at PMQ clearly having a crisis of some sort is not quite the same thing, is it?

Liz Truss insisted on her ridiculous plan, markets and economy plummeted, she needed to go & it was a matter of when. I hope she had some support when she stepped down, because however incompetent she might have been, it was still brutal.

Rachel Reeves seems to have some sort of emotional issue (and i won't speculate if it’s work/personal/both, but I hope she's supported too.)

For either and a lot more people “out there”, life in the public eye is merciless, so a bit of empathy would probably be better. Or at least refraining from taking bets, comparing people to lettuces etc. Politically disagree all you want with both or either. Leave the rest of the needless nastiness.

Which of Liz Truss’s budget points do you think caused the markets to ‘plummet’? And why do you think they were more significant than the impact of the liability-driven investment crisis on gilts?

Wheresthebeach · 03/07/2025 10:08

I think the point is that her behaviour caused the markets to crash. If she wasn't fit 'to be in work' then she should have had the judgement to know that, realise the impact of her emotional state would have on the markets, and not be in the commons for personal reasons. It all shows lack of judgement, and lack of understanding the markets likely reaction to a clearly emotional Chancellor.

RobinStrike · 03/07/2025 10:09

She was upset when she walked in and took her seat-people behind her tapped her shoulder and asked if she was ok. It was clear she was struggling. Starmer was concentrating on replying to Kemi Badenoch. But realistically he should have been prepared to say he was backing Reeves and she wasn’t moving, any advisor would have told him that a suggestion she was leaving the post would spook the bond markets. The fact it spooked them also is an indication they think she’s a decent chancellor and didn’t want her to be sacked.

SnowFrogJelly · 03/07/2025 10:09

Looks like she’s not going to resign so cut her some slack

Beautifulcreatures2 · 03/07/2025 10:09

Candlefright · 03/07/2025 09:35

She is close to a breakdown. No job is worth feeling like this .

She’s only been in the job five minutes so she clearly isn’t up to it . That isn’t a good look for the party.

Dwimmer · 03/07/2025 10:09

limescale · 03/07/2025 09:56

It is reported that she was upset about a personal matter.

Which Is a way to try and shut down discussion and elicit sympathy rather than scrutiny. That ‘personal matter’ may have been her inability to manage her role.

RobinStrike · 03/07/2025 10:09

@Wheresthebeachit was Starmer refusing to back her that caused the markets to crash.

Swipe left for the next trending thread