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.

If your policies cause the the loss of billions of pounds a year of tax revenue as you crash the economy and tax payers leave the country then some attacks are inevitable.

If you lie about your CV and you take one of the most important jobs in the country then some personal attacks relating to those lies are also inevitable.

She has sewn the seeds of her own misery. It sad to see someone upset but given her lies and the tens of billions she has cost the UK shedding a few years is probably appropriate.

Tittle tattle

Poor woman has probably not slept in about a week. God I'd more than cry.

I think you’re bang on - she hasn’t slept properly seeing those eye maga that are not normally there, and today’s events with Hoyle and PMQs were the straws that broke the camel’s back. Inevitable when sleep deprived.

You would see only those who are 'deserving' as getting pip and even then you'd have your own personal doubts, because they are able to talk.

The problem is Reeves isn't just anybody having a bad day. She is Chancellor of the Exchequer so crying on live TV has a massive impact. The bonds market slumped as did the pound and the stock market because there is a lack of trust in her position.

On a human level it was horrible to watch, and this isn't just one her. Someone should have told her to sit this PMQs out.

A Tory/Reform ticket would work, right now.

They would care no more, no less than this Labour Govt.

She also carries the weight of expectation in being the first female chancellor and of being from a working class background - her parents were primary teachers. Any failure on her part unfairly reflects on other working class girls.

I don't agree with the majority of her decisions, but I can conjure up some empathy for the position she finds herself in, some of it if her own making, quite a lot of it from Starmers ability to flip flop around and undermine her decisions (as much as the PM undermines the Chancellor, he is the PM.)

@Meadowfinch- what’s it like being perfect? Have you ever been caught in the eye of a media storm?

She shouldn't have appeared. Crying wasn't a good look. And now speculation

Im always surprised by how many people watch pmqs when everyone says they don't watch it.

It looked to me like she had a tooth infection.

She didn't look broken, just in physical pain.

or off to the jungle like Nadine Dorries.

The use of the third person when addressing the opposition in parliamentary questions is convention though, so in that context it didn't seem weird to me.

I’m a civil servant and my colleagues have been working with HMT on the Spending Review for months. It’s been stressful as hell and the times when colleagues from HMT have been in my meetings, they’ve looked ready to drop on their knees. They’ve gone from the budget to the SR to this - she, like her colleagues, is probably absolutely exhausted. Give her a break.

What utter nonsense and you know it.

That’s a pretty brave prediction, on your part.

Cheap words. I very much doubt you would be prepared to place your hard-earned behind it.

I will happily take the other side of that wager. We can do a bilateral trade. Happy to work out the specifics via DM.

Let me know (seriously).

She looked exhausted, and like she’s been crying for days.

Badenoch was vile as usual. Just awful.

The standard we have for people in politics is so flipping low these days. Hope to god we don't sink any lower.

She should not gave taken her seat today if she was upset. Or taken her seat, looked at phone & pantomimed to colleagues “I need to leave”

Sitting there quivering face sobbing is inexcusable.

Completely amateur and does not look good for her, along will all her other garbage decisions.

Does not look like any colleagues have her support.

calls herself an “economist”!

She would have been attacked far worse had she not turned up.

A third thread full of hate.

Way to go, right wing Mumsnet

Rather arrogant, professing to know the mind of others.

Well said.

Shameful that this forum is full of people being so vicious towards a menopausal-aged woman for shedding a tear.

She looked very upset. Probably the pressures of recent events. Labour wouldn’t issue a statement saying that’s why she cried though.

Exactly what I was thinking. Why is being visibly upset worse than being visibly angry, disrespectful or dishonest?