Reeves in Tears as Starmer Refuses to Guarantee She Will Stay in Job
Chancellor Rachel Reeves was visibly in tears during Prime Minister’s Questions today as Sir Keir Starmer refused to guarantee she would remain in role following last night’s welfare reform humiliation. The Telegraph has more.
Sir Keir Starmer failed to repeat a guarantee that Rachel Reeves will remain in her role as Chancellor for the whole of Labour’s first term in power as the Prime Minister remained under huge pressure over his welfare bill climbdown.
Kemi Badenoch took aim at a visibly emotional Ms Reeves during Prime Minister’s Questions and labelled the Chancellor a “human shield” for Sir Keir’s “incompetence”.
The Chancellor could be seen wiping tears from her face during PMQs although the exact reason why was not immediately clear.
Downing Street promised in January this year that Ms Reeves would remain as Chancellor for the duration of the five year parliament.
Mrs Badenoch asked Sir Keir to repeat the commitment.
Gesturing towards Ms Reeves, the Tory leader said: “She looks absolutely miserable. She looks absolutely miserable. Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the Chancellor is toast and the reality is that she is a human shield for his incompetence.
“In January he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?”
Sir Keir said: “She certainly won’t [directed at Mrs Badenoch]. I have to say I am always cheered up when she asks me questions or responds to a statement because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant they are.”
Mrs Badenoch then noted that Sir Keir had not guaranteed his Chancellor’s future.
“How awful for the Chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she will stay in place,” she said.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Rachel Reeves was crying after after an “altercation” with Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, it’s been reported. The Telegraph has the inside track:
Ms Reeves was visibly emotional during PMQs and a spokesperson for the Chancellor said afterwards that she was dealing with a “personal matter”.
But it has now emerged that Ms Reeves had a “row” with Sir Lindsay when she entered the chamber before the session got underway.
The Telegraph understands that Sir Lindsay spoke to Ms Reeves before PMQs about her conduct at Treasury questions in the Commons on Tuesday, where he asked her three times to be more brief in her answers.
On the third time, he interrupted her and she replied: “Oh, alright then.”
The Speaker is understood to have told her that it did not reflect well on either of them to be seen to disagree on the floor of the chamber, and pointed towards a tweet by the political sketchwriter Quentin Letts, who reported the altercation at the time.
After Sir Lindsay raised the issue with Ms Reeves today, she is understood to have begun crying.
Her spokesman said that she was already dealing with a “personal matter” before she attended PMQs.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
How humiliating is that, though? Even if you felt you were going to lose your composure you’d at least excuse yourself and head for the toilets.😳
Take a look at the others’ reactions. She should’ve been sacked ages ago though, so no sympathy from most people, I should think;
https://x.com/Angeleena25/status/1940373485437792634
Oh this is absolutely marvellous. A senior Labour politician, a traitor to this country and its people crying in front of the cameras in the home of democracy 😀😀😀. This is genuinely a reward well earned.
Glorious.
Weep you evil cow.
Well she was more than content at being the architect of many people’s misery so let’s see how she enjoys being on the receiving end. This is karma.😁
👍👍👍
Dreadful narsisist she is. She will want us to see how beastly everyone has been to her. Lets not forget who the real victim is here.
Hahahah. Good. I hope they all feel like the silly little people they are. Humiliate, embarrass, harass.
The damage they’re intent on doing to this country deserves nothing less.
Plus, not sure why the stupid bint is crying, she’ll get a nest egg from this.
Probably a book deal too along the lines of “Women in Power: Men hate me but I know I did the right thing” and a lovely little interview on Loose Women.
One amendment.. I am not instructing anyone to harass these knobheads on the street, I am instructing fellow MPs to harass them.
Just incase any of the StarmTroopers are reading.
They’re even suggesting her blubbing might be due to hay fever on Sky News.🤡
https://x.com/HoodedClaw1974/status/1940396962446229710
😀😀😀
Which would be even worse.
Hubris makes contact with reality.
Rachel – you are not up to it. You never were.
You lied on your CV.
You removed the picture of previous chancellors from your office because they reminded you of how incompetent you were.
You were full of girl power talk, but you crumbled under pressure.
It’s over.
I don’t know if the song about Richard III is appropriate at this point; it comes from three weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBJ0XhH7sq4
Best thing she’s ever done!
Maybe women shouldn’t be in politics.
I wondered when the first misogynist would appear. Congrats. Here’s a Trophy of Predictability: 🏆 Prat.
Thank you, much appreciated.
Maybe MPs shouldn’t be in politics. Or at least not making voting until they have served a probation year. /s I get the impression that most of the massive 2024 intake think that because they enjoyed the university debating society events it would plain sailing in the House of Commons and just needed the “right” buttons to be pushed and the “right” levers to be pulled. . Unfortunately, economic policy is not just about clicking on spreadsheets to raise taxes nor dishing out benefits to appease back-benchers scared about the next election. Neither is “climate policy” about “setting emissions levels” nor is “immigration policy” about “refugees”. What wins a debate in the uni doesn’t necessarily win over back-benchers, the public, juries, nor enables a lawyer to repeal the laws of thermodynamics.
The 2024 intake that you mentioned seem to be very sensitve to criticism, in that they can’t take it. Maybe those university debating societies arent’t up to much.
This is for the DS Misogynist Society, for whom reality is as troublesome as sunlight is for a vampire, and therefore must be avoided at all costs. Because by your warped ‘logic’, men such as Putin and Churchill shouldn’t have gone into politics either. But thanks for collectively demonstrating how weak you are in that you all evidently despise us women ( well, the non-submissives among us, anyway ), mainly because, due to your inadequacies, you feel threatened by us, hence the ever-present hostility towards the female sex on this site; https://telegrafi.com/en/eight-world-leaders-who-have-been-photographed-crying-in-public/ ”Regency men were not expected to have to control their emotions in the way that their Victorian grandsons and great-grandsons were. Yet there was one Victorian upper-class British Army officer and gentleman who cried in public to such an extraordinary extent that it was remarked upon on so many occasions that we need to regard him instead as a Regency figure born out of his time. Winston Churchill was a man of such powerful emotions, with a profoundly romantic imagination and capacity for empathy, and also possessing such aristocratic disregard of what others thought of him, that if he felt like crying, he just did. Churchill had the… Read more »
I believe she was crying because he insisted that she stays in post and sorts it all out.
It may all be theatre, but anyone paying attention will notice that socialist solidarity is not exactly strong in Starmer, who has surely signed off on every major policy decision.
I was just thinking the same tof. A little bit of play-acting for the general public to distract from the daily carnage.
They will all be mates again when they end up working for the same set of quangos
I wonder if the children who had to be uprooted from their schools because their parents couldn’t afford her VAT had a sniffle or two? Or the farmers who were also among her many targets? Let nobody feel any sympathy for that evil woman.
When I think of Starmer I am reminded of the fictional Hyacinth Bucket (BBC sitcom Keeping Up Appearances in the early nineties). Hyacinth was born of common stock, puts on airs and graces to ingratiate herself with the upper classes, and is completely oblivious to other peoples’ feelings or concerns.
I can’t imagine that Keir Bucket (“Bouquet”) would have noticed or cared about someone else’s tears.
Oh dear – when people say women are not suitable for high pressure and important jobs because they are too emotional…
Because Rachel Reeves represents all women in the same way Starmer represents all men.🤷♀️ But nevertheless, cue the inevitable pile-on by the DS Misogynist Society who want to make this singular episode all about one’s sex, such is your obsession with painting women as useless, inept and inferior.😴
Don’t tell me, let me guess what comes next…women shouldn’t be allowed to vote either, right? 🤡
Although I don’t think that women are not suitable for high pressure jobs, there is undoubtedly a discrepancy between the propaganda and the experience.
The propaganda says that women are not only equal to men but in fact superior in every conceivable way. Watch any modern TV drama – all the men are portrayed as stupid, hopeless losers, or sinister dodgy characters.
The propaganda also says that whenever a man performs better than a woman, it’s purely a result of the patriarchy having oppressed women. The women are still better, but due to the devious nature of men, they weren’t able to reach their full potential.
Consider the fact that Rachel Reeves actually made a point of this, expressing contempt for previous male chancellors.
And now – look, she’s messed up and she can’t cope with the pressure. Where is the “women can cope” bravado now? Where is the tough, kick-ass girl-boss?
So I can understand that JXB is feeling a bit sarcastic.
Ever heard of “Play the ball not the man”? Whenever anyone f**ks up or makes a show of themselves, as in Reeves’ case, my first thought has nothing to do with whether they’re male or female. I just think, “there goes a person who’s effed up/isn’t up to the job”. But perhaps I’m an outlier in this train of thought, at least on here, given the ever present and long-standing anti-women sentiment of many commenters on this site. Would you care to guess the reception I’d get if I posted, “typical stupid, useless white man. They shouldn’t ever be in positions of responsibility, should be barred from entering certain professions and most definitely should be banned from voting.”? 🤔 Yes, exactly. Turn the tables and it’s a different story. In fact, there’s many men on here accused me of being a misandrist, based purely on the fact I’m unafraid to challenge their hateful, sexist bullshit. But projection has always been the go-to weapon of choice for the misogynists. Accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of. Not one has ever provided a shred of evidence to support their accusation, but what does that matter when you’ve got the numbers… Read more »
When someone screws up, it shouldn’t matter if they are a man or a woman, as long as they didn’t treat the other sex with contempt and disdain.
The problem Rachel has is that she did.
Then if your comment is directed exclusively towards Reeves, why are you sympathetic to the women-haters amongst us that want to use her to make generalised statements about all women? You may be only referring to Reeves but for the resident misogynists this is being used as just another stick to beat women with because to men like that, women can’t do anything right and we must all be tarred with the same brush. You get where I’m coming from? If you are genuinely not a man that holds a grudge or pathological contempt for the opposite sex, because you acknowledge the fact that all women are made up of unique individuals, then you’d do well to distance yourself from those who only seek to tear us down, denigrate and scapegoat us for all of society’s ills.
Aligning yourself with those who think we should be banned from certain professions because we’re all useless emotional wrecks doesn’t exactly reflect well.
Hey, look, this is a debating forum.
I don’t necessarily fully endorse somebody’s views even if I can see where they are coming from.
Also I feel that the term “misogyny” is often used simply to shut down a debate.
There are some women I like very much. (I have been happily married for 34 years, by the way.) And yes, there are some women I can’t stand. Rachel is incompetent, lied on her CV and expressed contempt for his predecessors being male. I don’t like her. That doesn’t make me a misogynist sympathizer.
Yes I’m well aware this is a debating forum, which is why I’m debating. Therefore, how is calling somebody out as a misogynist, when they’re demonstrating literal misogyny “used simply to shut down a debate”? That certainly doesn’t apply in my case, unless you’re deliberately being willfully blind and failing to acknowledge the blatant misogynistic comments that are staring you in the face? I’d imagine there’s a fair amount of bias there, though, too. Am I right?
After all, a man calling out another man on here, over his anti-women, contemptuous comments, is as rare as hen’s teeth. Closing ranks, turning a blind eye, if not showing active support…Why do you think I refer to it as a ‘Boys’ Club’? Whereas if I said anything derogatory about men in general, you’d be all over me like a rash, wouldn’t you? Be honest. Double standards all the way down.
Leave the men alone who chat shit about women but come after the only woman on here who has the balls to challenge them instead, right?
Huh, what a character assassination.
I must be a terrible person.
And these are just the things you know about me…
You’re a pepetual victim, always playing the woman card.
On the contrary. I’m a perpetual pain in the arse for pathological women-haters such as yourself, because I never tire of holding a mirror up to your obvious misogyny and innate contempt for us. Hence why you and your ilk are always so incredibly triggered and easy to bait. I expose both your weakness and irrational behaviour, which you never provide any supporting evidence for, therefore you lose your shit every time. 😂 Cry harder, Mr Prat. 🤡
You know, you could just call us sexist, misogyny is such an overused term. It used to mean hatred of women now it means everything from jokes to mild criticism or really, anything that women find offensive.
I don’t really remember misogyny being used before about 10 years ago, now it’s thrown around all over the place. That’s why I say that sexist is more appropriate and accurate.
Every time feminists like you casually fling around misogyny for no good reason it loses it’s power.
Very lame.
How did you come to the conclusion I’m a feminist? Desperate, much? I can tell you’re new around here. Is that like how anyone who’s patriotic and opposes government policy, such as mass immigration, is a ‘far right extremist’? They get a label stuck on them because it’s a lazy way of discrediting anybody who challenges you?
And at least have the courage of your convictions and admit you hate women, therefore misogynist fits perfectly. After all, only somebody whose default is to tar half the planet’s population with the same brush and declare we’re all unfit to enter certain professions etc, is not somebody who has an iota of respect for the female sex.
Indeed. I believe Margaret Thatcher to have been a woman (!). Regardless of whether one agreed with her politics, she was more than capable of leading the country, and taking all the pressures that job entailed. I could also mention Queen Elizabeth II (hardly an emotional weakling) and countless others. Please let no-one suggest that all men are like the last few male PM’s we’ve endured!
Agreed. I just look at an individual and judge them on their actions and conclude if they’re competent or not. But it appears many on here have to make everything about the sex of the person. I suppose the above is a gift to the women-haters who will take any opportunity to demonstrate their contempt for females, but what can you do? 🤷♀️
Call me an anomaly but I’m more concerned about what’s going on between someone’s ears as opposed to between their legs. Shocking, I know..🤭
Those wise people just might be right.
I have a high pressured job and I’ve never cried. My sister is a project manger for a major bank and she was appalled with Reeves’ behaviour.
She is crying because she knows that she has bankrupt the country.
Not sure she cares enough about that to cry over it!
When she gets sacked it won’t solve anything, the whole lot need to go.
Tears of a Clown!
After the dreadful problems this woman has inflicted on the British economy and its wealth creators, taxpayers and all affected she goes on to demonstrate that she cannot even control her emotions in office. Utterly deplorable, self-indulgent hypocrisy.
Despite all our gleefulness at Theives’ approaching sacking let us not forget that what comes next will inevitably be far worse.
There’s not enough self-awareness to fill a thimble with any of these people.
Total lack of understanding of so much about how a modern economy functions, which makes it impossible to try to manipulate one using outdated information.
What did they say when Thatchrr passed away? I forget……
RIP Maggie, is what I said.
But yes they said something about a witch. Clueless, the lot of them. Totally clueless.
When I lived in West Leeds, I suffered the ignominy of having her as my MP. I communicated with her on various matters. Thick as pigsh*t.
Pulling “the female card” to gain sympathy is as disgraceful as pulling “the race card” to deflect criticism.
She has wrecked the economy; destroyed countless SMEs; ruined the lives of family farmers; overtaxed “ordinary people” who are struggling to manage family finances; driven the seriously wealthy out of the country and DELIBERATELY created stagflation.
I have sympathy for all the above. But none for her. If you can’t stand the heat …..
How exactly is she “pulling the female card”? I just see an MP, who happens to be female, sat blubbing and making a spectacle of herself.
Or are you implying her ‘performance’ was contrived?
Rachel from accounts lied on her cv. She deserves it.