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 we'd fully left the EU, we'd have been free to set our domestic laws to prevent it. We didn't and we agreed to abide by certain rules to get access to the single market.

Our politicians even agreed to stupid rules regarding 'unfair competition' that prevent us lowering corporation tax to entice companies into the UK.

It’s not EU law that prevents the UK making those changes, it’s a political and economic choice.

Maybe not making people live for so much longer than they want to would also help. I'm worried what the lords will do to the tiny hope we have in the assisted dying bill.

I'm fully supportive of an assisted dying bill under very specific and highly regulated circumstances.
What criteria would you use to decide who might willingly step up to support the NHS in a drastic way? Would you personally be willing to commit to such a cause?
I'm about to add an overly exaggerated amount of sarcasm here.
The future seems uncertain for many healthy individuals who fear becoming burdens on the NHS as they age or develop chronic illnesses, leading some to consider the option of an assisted dying bill. What about those who don’t want to live beyond 40 because they’re afraid of being a burden on the NHS?
Most people would likely jump at the chance to use the assisted dying bill to get rid of those troublesome pensioners who dare to claim their pensions. Why not just fast-track the assisted dying bill and extend it to all disabled people who can't afford to live on their income? Imagine the long-term savings, right?

I'd prefer it if we started with the convicted terrorists and murderers in prisons?

You mean bring back the death penalty? Rather than spend millions on keeping them for life? That is not going to happen in a civilised society.

Oh Jesus, we’re at the ‘run out of money, let’s kill people’ stage already? That didn’t take long.

unsubscribe

What seems to be happening now is that Tories are defecting to Reform, far left will defect to a new Corbynite Party, leaving Labour to take centre stage if they play things right, which means a party of those who work and contribute, governing from the centre. Which is the only way to govern. And with a close relationship to the EU.

A party of those who work and contribute? That would be hilarious, if it wasn’t so tragic.

Labour are the last lot I want managing the economy, thank you. They have been an unmitigated disaster, so far - look at the ratings, look at the markets, and a Government held hostage by the back benches.

They're the party of scroungers and public sector bed featherers.

Harsh

Agree

I want assisted dying for myself. I genuinely can't see how keeping people alive just because you can when they don't want to be alive is in anyone's interests.
Don't start making a straw man argument about disabled people, some of whom may chose to end their life as non disabled people might when in extreme pain. I include mental pain in this.

Suicide is one thing, assisted suicide involves someone else and that is a different matter altogether.

You think we have a "civilised society"? Really?

Knife crime at an all-time high, one rape every 15 minutes in London, shops being robbed with impunity, police not turning out for house burglaries.
With a murder rate of 13.1 per million people, London had the highest homicide rate among UK regions in 2023/24.

Yup really "civilised".

Capital punishment will not make a return to the UK, but what is also certain is that an increasing number of people will lose their lives at the end of a blade.

The correlation between diminishing economic prospects, declining social cohesion, and violent crime, is clear.

I do agree that we need more investment in policing and law and order and digital ID cards for all, to be checked regularly. Would mean regular immigration checks possible in all barber shops, car washes, take-always - these are places of human trafficking now and it is not kind to let it go unchecked.
The system here really is rotten and inefficient. We need less airy fairy, more efficiency and more crack down. That is clear. I do think Covid made a lot of it worse, but mental health issues, addiction (drugs, county lines, screens etc) - I feel a lot of society needs a more positive attitude to health including mental health and more positivity.