to believe Rachel Reeves was crying because

[LargeDeviation]

1. she was upset when Lindsay Hoyle told her to keep her answers short

2. she had an argument with Keir Starmer (possibly about her keeping her job, or about how to handle the inevitable questions about the new £5.5bn per annum black hole) just before PMQs

3. Keir Starmer refused to say she would keep her job in front of the whole country. If he genuinely wanted her to stay, he would just say 'of course she's going to still be Chancellor' and that would be that.

4. she is under immense pressure because she knows she will have soon to breach her fiscal rules, she knows she is responsible for many of the decisions that will lead to that, and she knows the how serious the consequences of her failure will be. We have seen recently (even just today) how vicious the bond market can be.

In short, I believe she was crying because of professional pressures (understandable ones, though largely of her own making, and about which I have little sympathy) and not nebulous 'personal' reasons.

If her parent or partner or child or grandparent or pet is ill the natural thing is to just say 'sorry, a close relative is in hospital and my emotions got the better of me'. Everybody would understand. You don't need huge reams of evidence but you need to give the bare bones of an explanation. She is trying to style it out but we can all see through it.

I will apologise if I'm wrong but long experience shows that 'personal reasons' almost always means 'I'm skiving or jobhunting' when a colleague in the workplace uses it to excuse their time off.

I believe it means even less when uttered by a politican.

Keir himself has hijacked the thread.

I think it would be fascinating to see a Reform Government - if it was in another country so wouldn’t impact me. I can’t see Farage interested in the work of PM and I think controlling his MPs would be like hearding cats. Within a couple of months I expect they would break down into factions, and within a year they would have split into entirely separate parties with a tenuous coalition or perhaps they would bring down the government and a separate coalition government would form with a legacy party. From a public perspective you would have very little idea which way your Reform MP would vote on nearly all issues.

Important to be clear on the timeline, KB made the "looking miserable" comment way before RR started crying,

Some of the edits on BBC were misleading and made it look like the comment was made in response to RR crying which wasn't the case.

It looks very different when you watch all of PMQs

I met her pre election and listened to her speak several times. She is finding out that the reality of governing is not just sttting in a office trying to do the best job she can but hostile media and politicking
my theory is pre election she spent most of her time building relationships with business and has done that successfully. Interesting on C4 news that the markets shifted in Liz Truss direction when it all went wrong in PMQs
there are some basic competence issues and Starmer has packed his backbenches with quality people who are going to act like MPs should and we finally have a government trying to govern. Errors, things to learn but overall lots of positives from first year in NHS/ planning
They have lost sight of the fact Labour voters generally expect good decsions on vulnerable people and have completely failed on the winter fuel and now this. I also do not buy the idea we can’t have wealth taxes - no taxes on working people is a specific pledge that does not exclude this
They need to spend the summer taking a breath, working out the benefits mess. There is a big job of reform to do but they’ve done it v badly.
the Labour Party is actually very United and wants them to succeed, I am personally dissapointed my own MP raised on benefits chose to make a toadying speech in support of Starmer instead of standing up for his constituents
I am curious as to what Torsten Bell, very vocal head of the resolution foundation, written extensively on benefits and now a treasury minister is doing. He’s almost invisible. Very ambitious and I expect biding his time and wants the top job

I think if she had stayed away, the opposition ( and press) would have had even more of a field day than they already are, and she would have been immediately accused of shirking her responsibilities, running scared, etc…..

I seriously think we will see a Reform government, but the markets will implode the day after.

That will be "fun"

More civility in politics is needed. Less below the belt hitting. Adults can disagree politely and constructively.

The irony of the last sentence being posted on the AIBU board 🤣

The jeering is so ridiculous. We pay these people to act professionally. It's just horrible. Like a bunch of school kids.

You’re being a bit dramatic. She hasn’t crashed the economy. Her policy hasn’t lost tax revenue. She was attempting to change the policy introduced by the last government, to make access to disability benefits more restricted, because of exponential growth in claims post-Covid. She’s not been able to bring in these restrictions so the existing policy is largely in place.

Clamping down on tax avoiding non doms likewise has not crashed the economy or lost tax revenue. Clamping down on non doms began prior to this government with substantial changes brought in in 2017. This government has continued that trend in order to raise tax revenue. Post the 2017 changes about 10% of non doms left the U.K. but the rest stayed and tax revenue overall increased. We are likely to see the same trend with the recent changes. Some will leave but most will stay and overall tax revenue will increase. The OBR forecast that 12-25% may leave but overall revenue is expected to increase by £34bn over 5 years.

Nevertheless, none of the political choices, made by this government or the last, excuses personal attacks and bashing. It’s totally unproductive as well as cruel. Argue the policy, don’t resort to personal attacks.

Her absence might have been noted but a statement that ‘she had to deal with a personal issue’ would have been a lot less damaging than crying in chamber.

A lot of things!!! Not all!!! No one can deny she is without doubt a happier bunny than she has ever been. You only have to look at her to see it!!!

The Labour backbenchers will be out of a job now in 4 years. They really have shafted themselves and their constituents by not backing the bill. Reform will crucify the poor.

100% she misrepresented herself on LinkedIn and blamed an aide. Which is even worse - inept as a manager, doesn’t check the work bearing her name … and can’t find any “aide” to publicly fall on their sword and admit they wrote it.

She wants to quit, desperately which is why she cried today. She does not want the job any more, & wants to be fired for crying. .

I feel very sorry for her (despite not liking her politics). I do feel though she’s made a bad decision to attend today if she was in that fragile a state (whatever the reason). A chancellor needs to appear confident and steady, a statement that a personal matter needed to be attended to might have raised some questions but wouldn’t have been this humiliating / potentially bad for markets.

I suspect she is crying because she finally realises she is totally out of her depth.
She lied about her experience on her CV and does not have the expertise to do the job.
She is probably being leant on by the globalist WEF that has its own agenda ( KS a keen WEF/ Davros supporter), and she is very much between a rock and a hard place. I have certain amount of sympathy for her but much more for those she has lied to and whose lives she has ruined such as small business owners, tax payers, farmers, pensioners etc

Ahhh, and the male counter part looks???? If you look at ministers (US and UK particularly), their time in office ages them. It must be exhausting.
And - you know the Dr Who trope of "everyone is included", may be this was intended to be ironic, but I remember feeling it was very sexist at the time
3 mins 28 seconds

Oh PShaw to the markets they're always having a case of the vapours. They were swooning at every pronouncement of Trump's at the start. Now they barely twitch. It's all about odious ugly men like Soros manipulation of prices

Kemi Badenoch is a horrible person and comes out with the most ridiculous, nasty crap. Why the hell would the personal business of the Chancellor be made public?

This ^ . The End.

I think the biggest, and perhaps most revealing, issue for Reform would be our increasingly partisan and activist civil service. Some people might be relieved to find blocks to Reforms policies put in place by them, like the council officer who refused to follow the instruction of ruling reform councillors to take down a pride flag. But such an actions would suggest we are no longer a democracy. Better a terrible Reform government.

Such hyperbole. Ruined my arse. I think you mean Davos, not the Dalek overlord.

Imagine what the bullies would have said if she stayed away. I can't remember another chancellor being under such absurd pressure.
This is how women are treated in public life, take note.

Because she made it public by crying in parliament

How is this a positive, though? Gordon Brown and Philip Hammond definitely should have been crying, just for starters, and they were relatively competent.

All chancellors are under pressure. Go back a few years to a pandemic and add more.