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.

"No, Mr Bond. I expect you to die" 🙄

Starmer is this. Jeering you’ll be out. Loathsome.

She went into that situation with eyes wide open (or certainly should have done!): it's well understood that politics is a career that requires a thick skin and the ability to control one's emotions. Margaret Thatcher (whatever one may think of her) had to deal with far more vitriol - and even gave a party conference speech after just having been nearly blown to bits during the Brighton terrorist attack - and did not cry. Edwina Currie (yikes) was relentlessly mocked over the salmonella debacle - and she didn't sit and cry by the dispatch box. Liz Truss...well I can't even bring myself to revisit that shiteshow.

Ms. Reeves wasn't even giving a speech, so she didn't need to be in the Commons for her weepy moment. Her spokesperson has said it was due to a "personal" matter - in which case there's even more reason for her to be discrete and not allow that personal matter to cause a market and currency panic. If Ms. Reeves cannot handle herself and control her emotions then she should know better than to go onto the floor of the Commons. Or, if she is really experiencing personal difficulties she can always resign from the government and be a backbencher. She hasn't lost "nearly everything" - she's made some big time professional (and unprofessional) blunders and isn't doing herself any favours in the way she's handled them. For example, there is absolutely NO excuse for anyone misrepresenting their qualifications and previous work experience to the electorate But in the grand scheme of things she hasn't quite reached Liz Truss lettuce levels yet.

Labour smirk through policies that impact people. They can’t be surprised when they get hostility back. They bring it on themselves.

Incredible that you have spoken to every single stock trader and currency trader who made a transaction in the immediate aftermath of PMQ and have determined that NONE of them were remotely impacted by seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer being unable to control her emotions on the front bench. What a daft thing to say.

She was crying because she knows the Labour left (& not for the first time) has probably killed any chance of Labour winning the next general election.

I don’t really care. Starmer fucking up or Reeves. Go with whatever you want.

Can you imagine the fallout if she hadn't turned up at all?! After that vote in the Commons just the previous evening. Politicians are held to much higher standards than your average person doing a job. Everyone would have said she lacked the courage to own her mistakes.

Op, Keir Starmer may have been reticent to say she'd still be in post because she may privately have doubted, to him, her ability to continue in post. Members of staff have opened up to me previously about their feelings and although I've supported them wholeheartedly, it's essentially that person's decision. Not even the PM can commit to something that's not fully under his control.

As for her explaining her personal reasons, it could be any number of things beyond a close relative being in hospital. I've always been incredibly strong and professional and unwavering at work (also in a highly pressured environment). The thing that finally pushed me over the edge was yet another morning battling to get my (then undiagnosed) autistic 6yo dd into her school uniform and out of the house. I was bitten, scratched, hit and kicked, she broke her car seat trying to escape and nearly made me crash the car. This was after weeks, months of similar abuse. 25 years of stiff upper lip professional at work, fighting through the bad times and not allowing anyone to see me weak and vulnerable and I totally fell apart in one moment due to a comment from another colleague that on any other day I'd have brushed aside. No way would I have found the words to explain to a hyper critical and unsympathetic public audience the toll this had taken on me.

Women in public office are somehow expected to be more manly than men in the same position. But they're not men. They have all kinds of biological, social and professional pressures that most men don't have. Holding it in, holding it together, and carrying on despite it all, is what drives women to the state we witnessed yesterday. And all the time, women like Badenoch are jeering from the sidelines just waiting to pull those women down, humiliate them further, jump into their grave.

I don't know what her reasons were. They may have been personal, or professional, or a combination of both. But I would always rather be on the side of compassion, and humanity, than one of those excitedly jeering from the sidelines.

She's screwed up big time.

She has a masters in Economics FFS and don't these Ministers have a bank of advisors/researchers/interns to help them? There's no excuse for her incompetence.

The first move she made was to attack pensioners and it all went downhill from there 🙄

Early into her tenure, she established the National Wealth Fund, scrapped certain winter fuel payments, cancelled several infrastructure projects, and announced numerous public sector pay rises. She presented her first budget in October 2024, where she introduced the largest tax rises at a budget since March 1993 which is forecast to set the tax burden to its highest level in recorded history.

Meadowfinch I agree ,shes way out of her depth .A decent Accountant from Surrey could do better! I think its a case of when not if be candid.If any of us mucked up like she has we would have go the sack some time back!

I have left my desk and cried at work twice. Both times because a horrible little man (two different ones) has been unnecessarily rude to me. Rachel Reeves was unable to leave her desk and hence we all saw it. I actually sympathise no matter what I might think of her policies.

All political parties do this when in charge. Playing to their constituency of voters whilst gleefully punishing those they see as undeserving.

Consider, for instance the standard gloating Budget statements under George Osborne that bought us the 2 child benefit cap whilst lavishing funds on (increasingly now deceased and spent) pensioners BC they were more inclined to vote, and vote tory

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.

Everybody would understand! I don’t think we inhabit the same planet.

Sky news reporting that "2 senior Labour MPs" are saying Starmer could be out in months if he continues to back Reeves

Borrowing costs are now at 5.45% for a 30 year term. The pound depreciated sharply. That's the biggest jump in borrowing costs since Liz Truss. Normally it wouldn't matter if anyone cried in the House but for her, it matters. Her words have the power to move markets and the markets are worried that she'll be replaced with a hard left winger who will rip up the financial rules and constraints and go on a borrowing spree. So yeah, Kwasi Kwarteng did the same thing and was got rid of immediately because it was going to bankrupt the country. It doesn't matter what people in your party or country want, ultimately the bond markets are the final arbiter.

Plus the fact that the attempt to get a handle on the welfare bill has failed and will become ever more unsustainable. That's what will
pssibly bankrupt us.

I guess we’ll see. They’re all fighting each other atm.

@ladywindemeresbucket She’s not politically savvy. The WFA raid on people who are just above pension credit was crass. They are significantly worse off than those on pension credit! She doesn’t listen to business - wants growth but increases employment tax! NI. She needs to rein in benefit spending but couldn’t take enough of the PLP with her. She’s essentially not being backed and will either raise borrowing (our dc will pay) or raise taxes (we pay). This won’t increase productivity. Never does. We spend less and don’t save. People lose jobs as work goes overseas. Labour learnt under Blair that you had to allow business to flourish. Reeves doesn’t get it.

I don’t think it matters. It could be a culmination of things, as is often the case with most people.

She looked very tired and drawn. I’m not a fan but I do feel empathy for her.

How was she supposed to know it was personal?

How are any of us? We have been told it was personal to shut down questioning and to elicit sympathy, but it could just be that she ‘personally’ feels overwhelmed by the role.

This is Starmer and Labour too though. It’s a collective failing to do these things with him as leader.

ETA I agree with your post but would add the others.

Restrict the fuller winter fuel allowance to those born before 1940 maybe was one way to rationalize it.

What tax would you have raised nstead? given the unfunded cuts n NI by Hunt costing £10billion per year and other costs handed to the new Govt? such has pay review pay riises, perhaps you wouldn't have honoured them, that was an option.

Or would you have cut public spending?

The NI increase on business hasn't led to the collapse in the jobs market and growth has increased too.

But yes i do agree the WFA was ridiculous but that would have been run past the cabinet... they agreed to it... it shouldn't be put just on Reeves.

Stephen Kerr’s statement was political point scoring and bland.

Just tried to find his (Shadow minister for employment and investment in the Scottish Parliament) statement. The only thing I could find was on X him saying:

Keir Starmer- and especially Rachel Reeves- look entirely banjaxed at #PMQs. Their Government has no purpose apart from survival. It's been less than a year, and they have a 170 seat majority.

Not sure why that is even worth mentioning?

Have you come across politics before?

It could be her children’s school has been forced to close because of pointless education taxes? Or her business has had to fold because of financially illiterate job taxes? Or her parents got sick over winter because they couldn’t afford heating? Or her husband just lost his job because of job tax?
In which case, I’d say ‘we have to make tough decisions’ whilst smirking.