Proper news from Britain - News from Britain you won’t find anywhere else. Not the tosh the big media force-feed you every day!
We may never properly learn what finally brought Rachel Reeves to break down in tears in the House of Commons chamber yesterday. Ultimately only she will know, and to a degree it remains a matter for her.
But only to a degree. She is the British Chancellor. And no one who has worked in Westminster – and I’ve been working there for over 30 years – has ever seen anything like the scenes we witnessed. As the tears were rolling down the Chancellor’s cheeks a colleague said to me ‘this is really horrible’ to watch.
It was. So it’s best to place emotions aside, and stick with the facts.
The genesis for Reeves’s public breakdown was a seemingly innocuous spat between the Chancellor and Speaker Lindsay Hoyle 24 hours earlier, which was reported by the Daily Mail’s sketchwriter Quentin Letts. ‘Rachel Reeves urged to give shorter answers... rolled her eyes and said “urgh, all right”, making plain her contempt,’ Quentin reported.
As she entered the chamber for yesterday’s PMQ’s session, Hoyle pulled Reeves aside, and was heard to say: ‘Quentin Letts has been tweeting about us. That exchange wasn’t helpful to anybody.’ At that point accounts differ. The Chancellor’s allies claim the exchange escalated, and Hoyle became abrupt with her. Others who witnessed their interaction say it was brief and insignificant.
But what has been confirmed by multiple sources is Reeves then said ‘I’m just under so much pressure’, before taking her place on the Government bench. Soon after, she became visibly upset.
As the session unfolded, Keir Starmer carried on apparently unconcerned at the mounting distress of his Chancellor. When goaded by Kemi Badenoch over whether he would be keeping her in her role, he pointedly declined to answer. Others noted he kept referring to her successes in the past tense.
This has led to sustained criticism of Starmer over his perceived callousness. But other ministers who were on the front bench, only a few spaces down from Reeves, claim they genuinely had no idea she was so upset. As one told me: ‘I honestly didn’t realise. I wasn’t looking a her, but she sounded quite robust, backing up Keir.’
In the immediate aftermath of the session, chaos ensued. Downing Street officials claimed to have no idea of what was happening to the Chancellor, and referred queries to her own team. Treasury officials appeared equally blindsided, and refused – or felt unable – to return calls. In the vacuum, rumours spread she had resigned, or been sacked by Keir Starmer. This, in turn, began to create significant turbulence on the financial markets.
Some people have pointed conspiratorially to this media black-out. But one Government official told me: ‘To be honest, I’d be surprised if Rachel’s team were even watching PMQs. She’s not got any role, and after last night [the welfare rebellion] they had enough on their plate.’
Eventually her advisers issued a terse statement claiming she had experienced a ‘personal matter’ and they would not be commenting further. An explanation that has created significant scepticism across Westminster, and even among her own colleagues. According to one Cabinet minister: ‘She was already on edge after an argument she had with Angela Rayner over the benefits climbdown. Then when Lindsay had a little pop that pushed her over the edge. But it wasn’t his fault. It wasn’t really about him.’
Another minister said tensions between Reeves and Rayner had burst into the open after the Deputy Prime Minister’s allies had briefed colleagues she had brokered yesterday’s welfare climbdown directly with the PM, bypassing the Chancellor. This came after it emerged Rayner had been directly lobbying Reeves to change course on tax policy. One said: ‘Rachel thinks Angela has been undermining her, and damaging her credibility with the markets’. Another observer of PMQs said: ‘It was noticeable Angela and Rachel were ignoring each other throughout the session.’
However, if we are to believe it was a ‘personal issue’ that brought the Chancellor to tears, other colleagues wonder why she attended PMQs in the first place. ‘If it was so serious, why was she there? And why did they let her go in there if they knew she was facing some major issue?’ one asked.
There are essentially two ways of objectively addressing Rachel Reeves’s unprecedented emotional distress in the chamber. The first is to take the explanation furnished by her office at face value. She is confronting a significant, private, personal issue. And she has every right to maintain her privacy.
The other is to take Reeves herself at face value. And recognise she is indeed facing ‘so much pressure’ in her uniquely demanding role that she has been pushed to breaking point.
But either way, the conclusion that must be reached – and it needs to be reached by Keir Starmer quickly – is that Rachel Reeves cannot remain in post until the issues she is facing are resolved. Because ultimately, this is not about her, but about the country.
It is simply not tenable to have a Chancellor breaking down in tears in the House of Commons chamber. The circumstances of their emotional distress are not relevant. Reeves’s suffering significantly undermined the financial markets, and the chaotic speculation that followed it further undermined the credibility of a government that has already had its authority shredded.
What’s more, the Prime Minister has a duty of care to a valued colleague. And while he may not have been fully aware of her anguish at the time, he is fully aware of it now. And it cannot simply be brushed off as ‘one of those things’.
Reeves needs to be pulled back – at least temporarily – from the political front line. Keir Starmer owes it to her. And, more importantly, he owes it the nation.
Remove Ads