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.

I don't care the reason. She should not have been crying in the house. Those pictures have gone around the world and whether the reason is personal or not, it's the perception that matters.

she hasnt lied about her qualifications and she is just as qualified as any of the men who have done the role in the last few years. She has been handed an impossible situation and is doing her best within very tight confines. She has made mistakes like anyone and is probably exhausted, hormonal and stressed. It’s probably not one thing but lots in combination.
A man might look stressed but probably would be unlikely to cry - but that’s ok our biologies are different but our brains are just as good.
But you know what, it shows she cares about the job.
Does Kemi have any solutions herself? I thought her jeering was like an awful playground bully.
i actually couldnt imagine Blair, Cameron, May, Brown or even Sunak capitalising on that.

Hope they feel the pressure. @GoSteadyReadyyep. Typical for Labour.

Absolutely. The idea that focus should have been placed on comforting Rachel shows a failure to understand the serious business of the Commons. It is human to cry but come on now, Rachel's crying so publicly has impacted confidence in her. It would have been the same if it was a man crying under pressure so publicly in high office.

No one is responsible for Rachel's tears but Rachel. To start pointing fingers at who should take responsibility for Rachel's feelings is not helpful to women's cause. It just plays to a variety of typical stereotypes.

The Commons is a tough environment as it should be. We want politicians to hold each other accountable and to expect Rachel to be treated with kids gloves is ludicrous.

And who do you think will be better?

I agree with almost all of this, except the Sunak bit. He wouldn’t have been able to resist a little jibe.

Badenoch is exactly like a sneering teenage bully, for sure.

Starmer is the sneering bully.

Not quite the first answer but this one absolutely nailed it for me.

So Rachel cries. Kemi Badenoch is worse than the worse. Not Cameron, Sunak, etc would be so bad as Kemi because Rachel has cried. The problem is not that Rachel has cried but that Kemi is a bad person for not giving sway to Rachel's tears.

So let's bash Kemi because the real problem here is her not thar Rachel lacks resilience under the pressure that is part and parcel of this job. When a white woman cries, look for a black or brown person to bear the brunt of it.

ETA sorry -I've accidentally quoted the wrong person

We're in a period of rapid change. Standard of living will drop. We have an aging population, we're increasing spending on defence, climate change/net zero is expensive - something has to give. We can't expect Scandinavian social spending on American taxes.

I don't understand why Starmer promised not to raise "taxes on working people" in his manifesto. Isn't "tax more spend more" standard left wing policy? If the labour party really believe that the majority of voters want to increase welfare spending, then it makes sense for the majority of us to pay for it.

It’s madness. Starmer can goad and prod, Reeves can’t get it together but Kemi is attacked.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rachel-reeves-crying-starmer-pmqs-latest-news-b2781165.html

And Liz was whilst she held on for, what, just enough days to secure her PM pension ?

Angela Rayner was also sneering at her. I don’t know what Reeves was crying about, but she’s clearly not up to the job anyway.

McFadden or Mahmood are being mooted as her likely replacements, which she will unless the money markets settle down.

And lied about a '£22 billion black hole' which included her throwing ludicrous pay settlements at her union backers.

She's lied from her very first speech as chancellor.

‘So Rachel cries. Kemi Badenoch is worse than the worse. Not Cameron, Sunak, etc would be so bad as Kemi because Rachel has cried. The problem is not that Rachel has cried but that Kemi is a bad person for not giving sway to Rachel's tears.
So let's bash Kemi because the real problem here is her not thar Rachel lacks resilience under the pressure that is part and parcel of this job. When a white woman cries, look for a black or brown person to bear the brunt of it.’

OMG this has nothing to do with race. Did you see how Kemi acted? She is not just a random lady, she is LOTO. She should be standing up explaining what her party would do differently and inspiring us with her leadership skills to vote for her. She did nothing like that. In fact can’t really recall her having any opinions outside of culture wars.

I think if you have been a high acheiver throughout our your life with a gilded career then the 'dream job' and it all goes to shit quickly then it can have a devastating psychological inpact. The bigger you are the bigger you fall.

Maybe Rachel was thinking about her legacy and how if she stays in role how she can face up to interviewers to defend her record. The future must look a bit bleak.

I think Rachel should have really been self aware of her emotional state though in the commons.

Do you notice Starmer attacking, jeering every week? The condescension and arrogance. It’s ridiculous.

What the same sneering and attacking Sunak, Johnson, etc. did every week? That’s politics.

So you excuse Starmer’s bullying but do you criticise Kemi as others have?

Everyone cries but there are lots of jobs where you can’t cry in front of customers/clients/an audience without them questioning your fitness to do the job.

Bollocks.

Do you mean the independent pay review body pay rises that Hunt himself committed too? but didn't set aside any money for?

Or do you imagine that Hunts 18billion in NI cuts, unfunded, somehow is free money???

Year on year, these NI cuts cost the GOvt, thats you and i, £10billion per year in lost take tax.... all free money in the eyes of the Tories.....

Clearly it wasn’t KB who kicked her off, but she had lots of fun kicking her when she was down. Basic kindness and dignity has nothing to do with race.

I just wish Labour would increase taxes on higher earners. I’d be happy to pay more to get better public services especially the NHS.