Actually, it is the patronising, tone-deaf MPs who need reminding we are human
Five minutes ago, Chancellor Rachel Reeves was ready and willing to balance the government's books on the back of the poor and the weakest in our society.
The Daily Mirror was among the platforms with a conscience highlighting the ordinary working - and in some cases middle - class people whose tears will never be seen in the public domain.
They continue to include people suffering from stress, anxiety, the people whose children with ADHD can't get an education because they are wrongly characterised as trouble instead of traumatised. Who sees their tears? Who weeps for them outside the campaigners working tirelessly to keep them in the news agenda?
Do the tears and the subsequent puffy eyes of the Chancellor really cancel out the concern for them? Does the justified concern we have for Rachel Reeves really outweigh the mounting worry for millions struggling to access the services they need and the others at the mercy of more welfare cuts?
Yes, a nation we go weak at the knees for a tear or two. Weep in public and you instantly become a national treasure. From Paul Gascoigne at the 1990 World Cup, through Andy Murray in 2012, crying before he finally conquered Wimbledon, to Denise Welch who sobbed announcing her marriage split on Loose Women.
But honestly, spare me the vomit-inducing hypocrisy from disingenuous politicians reminding us that MPs are human when they are more than willing to push through policy they know will leave our lives - and others' - in pieces.
On one side of the Despatch box we have a government whose many positive things they have done since taking office a year ago have been eclipsed by what many perceive as a betrayal of the voters who installed them in office.
On the Opposition benches, the Tories whose lack of humanity is extensively documented going back 14 years. And even they are now having to go some to match Reform.
So actually, it is the politicians who need reminding that we are human. It is the politicians whose word salads when families are burning, starving and being brutalised to death in the Middle East, speak volumes. It is the politicians with form for trying take from the poor to give to the rich.
Even at a basic level, it is hard for the government to send out the 'be kind' message when a PM trumpets the number of women in his government while his Chancellor is crying behind him.
Reeves is the woman who guffawed, slapped her thigh and couldn't stop laughing behind Sir Keir Starmer when the PM, defending himself against criticism of his dog whistle, 'Island of Strangers' speech, humiliated Welsh MP Liz Saville Roberts in the House.
None of that means she deserved her difficult moment on Wednesday. All of it means we all have a duty to be kind, to think of others and to mindful of when it next could be us.
Kemi Badenoch is a vicious, mendacious, nasty piece of work with form for ignoring the sisterhood to kick a colleague when she is down.
Four years ago she tried and failed to embarrass an outstanding young female journalist on a rival newspaper when the writer had quite correctly approached her to clarify issues over a video campaign promoting the coronavirus vaccine programme.
But was the Tory leader really the aggressor in this situation? It was only after Badenoch remarked that Reeves appeared miserable that the Chancellor's tears began to flow.
Handed the chance to go in again, Badenoch would only point out that Starmer hadn't backed his Chancellor, not that her quivering bottom lip was dancing all over the place and that mascara was getting ready to run.
The Tory leader has form for showing herself to be devoid of empathy, sympathy and emotional intelligence.
But she actually declined the chance to in harder, to avail herself of an open goal in what would easily have been even more unedifying scenes.
And here's the thing. What was Reeves doing in the Chamber if she was struggling with 'a private matter' that serious? Nobody would have begrudged her the opportunity to leave to address it.
The theatre of politics would have survived had she attended to the matter instead of engaging in the performative Punch and Judy which so often, actually demeans our political system.
Why did none of her government colleagues on the front bench, seeing her distress, immediately move to support her?
Sadly, her continued presence in the Chamber meant Badenoch had to keep her in the Tory crosshairs - as it was the Chancellor's work on the line.
Liz Kendall, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions had been the highest profile of the politicians raising the alarm. Millions of words had been written and spoken voicing fear at what had already been characterised as a betrayal of the very people that had voted for this Labour government.
A week ago the Treasury had been briefing there would be no u-turn.
The issue was so serious that, yes, Reeves's colleagues were openly briefing against her.
Now this. There is a view that the Chancellor was feeling the emotional effects of an earlier exchange with the Speaker, caught on camera.
But then, in the next breath, we are told by those who have known her since her student days that she is a tough political operator.
Anyone who has operated in business - and the £3billion hit taken by the markets provided a stark reminder that this was very much business - will know that you simply cannot show what could be perceived as weakness in the field.
As someone who has fought my own battles in the workplace, my mantra has always been to keep a lid on vulnerability. Breathe out in private.
Many of the people who will defend your right to show it in our supposed enlightened era will be the same ones jumping onto their private WhatsApp groups to give you both barrels there.
The reality too, is that whatever the truth, political images act as a brutal metaphor for the bigger political picture.
Ask Ed Miliband who never recovered from his bacon sandwich face. Ask Rishi Sunak, soaked outside no.10 during his General Election announcement or another former PM, Theresa May who wept as she prepared to exit stage left.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer has revealed himself to be the most politically hopeless PM of my lifetime
We are told that it was 'personal' reasons which caused Rachel Reeves to weep at Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) on Wednesday. No doubt that is true. But when a prominent person weeps on a public occasion, the tears are prompted by a confluence of the personal and the political. Whatever upset Ms Reeves felt was surely compounded by her desperate and isolated political situation following the collapse of the Government's welfare reform Bill. The first Rachel wept, as is recorded in the Old Testament Book of Jeremiah. She was weeping for her children, but hers were public tears too: she was revered as the wife of the patriarch Jacob and mother of Joseph. God told her: 'Refrain thy voice from weeping and thine ears from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded.' It has to be said that Sir Keir Starmer was rather less generous to his Rachel than was the Almighty to the Mother of Israel. When, across the floor of the House, Kemi Badenoch pointed out to him that his Chancellor 'looks absolutely miserable', he did not turn round to comfort or even to check. Nor did he take up the Leader of the Opposition's invitation to confirm Ms Reeves in her post. Before the session ended, the Prime Minister did say something about being 'grateful' to her, but by then it was too late. Afterwards, No 10 declared that Ms Reeves was 'going nowhere', a phrase which, in the circumstances, was either tin-eared or barbed. In an interview, Sir Keir insisted she would continue as Chancellor for the next election and for years beyond. He is in no position to make such a promise. People often complain about the 'bearpit' of PMQs. This week's half hour was certainly uncomfortable to watch, but it did show why such occasions can make a difference. In a few minutes of parliamentary theatre, we got to the heart of the matter. In passing, it is worth pointing out that Mrs Badenoch did well. With wit and concision, she identified Labour's key embarrassments – the second U-turn at the very last moment, the fact that a cost-cutting Bill will now save nothing at all and Sir Keir's problem that 'he does not know what he believes'. She seized the chance to get her own party back on the long road to the economic respectability it so badly lost in government. Whereas Labour had just voted for spending more money, she said, the Conservatives know the nation must 'live within its means'. Sir Keir's capitulation vacates the political ground of prudence, giving the Tories the chance to re-occupy it – and at a time when Reform has decided to become a big-spending party. In the end, those who want to give ever more public money to people who do not want to work are fewer than those who do work and will now almost certainly have to pay higher taxes. On this point, Mrs Badenoch spoke with justified confidence. An oddity caused by the slow Conservative leadership election process last year is that Mrs Badenoch has still not addressed her annual party conference as leader, so the troops do not feel they know their general. Now she has a victory under her belt to celebrate with them. She has won on some other subjects recently, such as the grooming gangs inquiry, but this week was her first big breakthrough. More important right now is what all this means for the Government which we might still have for four more years. Again, PMQs gave useful optics. Most of the time, the camera concentrated on just three people on the front bench – the Prime Minster in the middle, inexpressive as usual; to the right, the crumpled Chancellor, in a blue suit, trying and failing to conceal her distress; to the left, in a striking all-red number, the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, head erect and smiling in a nothing-to-do-with-me sort of way. You could see the future, and why it won't work. It still seems almost incredible that a government only a year old should have cut off its room for future progress so early. There may be a case that the public finances, though bad and getting worse, are not so disastrous that all is lost, but history does suggest that such a serious failure of economic and political will is very hard to come back from. Wilson's Labour government lost confidence after having to devalue the pound in 1967, and lost the election in 1970. Heath's Tories executed their U-turn on free markets and non-intervention in 1972, and lost (twice) in 1974. Labour went 'cap in hand' to the IMF in 1976, and lost to Mrs Thatcher in 1979. John Major's Tories won a general election in April 1992 but had to take the pound out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in September. Tony Blair trounced them in 1997. In some of these cases, notably Major's, the economy did recover, but in all of them the government was seen to have failed in its economic stewardship. The voters duly punished it. This time, the Government has undoubtedly failed. Labour's selling-point to the electorate a year ago was that, unlike the Tories, and particularly the horror story of Liz Truss, it would restore growth and control the public finances with enough discipline that the proceeds of that growth would improve public services. It has taken only 12 months, almost to the day, to discredit all those promises. In reaction, some have criticised the rebel Labour MPs who forced Sir Keir's retreat for their economic illiteracy. Downing Street special advisers speak unattributably to lobby journalists with foul-mouthed quotations about the idiocy and self-indulgence of their party's backbenchers. It is true that social media have made MPs more narcissistic and less loyal to their party. It is also true that failure to rein in welfare spending is – along with the NHS – the road to national ruin. But Sir Keir and his political advisers seem to have a very hazy idea of what it is like to be a member of Parliament. With all aspects of social policy, MPs will have numerous constituents who will be directly affected and will complain to them. Most MPs of the governing party will be prepared to justify unpopular government policy if they can do so as part of a big story of foreseeable recovery or of dire necessity. It is incredibly hard to do so, however, when the policy unexpectedly removes existing money from claimants, and when the overall picture of what the government is trying to do is so contradictory and confusing. In the case of personal independence payments (PIPs), there are a great many scandals (some recently documented by the TaxPayers' Alliance) about how easily people can get the money for inadequate or trumped-up reasons. A government set on persuasion could have dramatised such freeloading to win over voters. It did not. Instead, it suddenly threatened millions of claimants, thwarting reasonable expectations. You don't have to be a Zarah Sultana-style Corbynista to worry. Any decent MP would want to voice those discontents at Westminster. In my lifetime, and therefore in the lifetime of the great majority, no Labour government has ever been able to cope with bad economic conditions. They have been boom-time phenomena, triumphantly so in the case of Tony Blair's first two terms. Sir Keir's administration has quickly reverted to this depressing type, adding a political incompetence that would make anyone weep.
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Senedd hears food processing industry ‘in managed decline'
Nick Allen, chief executive of the British Meat Processors' Association, told the Senedd's rural affairs committee: 'My members are incredibly concerned about the direction of travel. 'And it doesn't just apply to Wales, [it's] right across the whole country, but I think it's particularly significant here: the decline in livestock numbers, the projections and, dare I say, the attitude and the desire… in the Welsh Government to actually drive a further reduction.' Mr Allen said: 'Big investors and employers in Wales are incredibly concerned about the future: more than concerned, I'd say incredibly depressed about what the future holds.' He warned: 'Unfortunately, it seems endemic within civil servants that they don't really want to help industry and work with them. They seem to almost [act] as a police force to stop us doing things rather than thinking 'this is what's good for the country'.' Mr Allen, who has been involved in discussions since the controversial sustainable farming scheme was paused by ministers, suggested the dial has barely moved in the months since. He described ministers' approach to bluetongue disease as 'another nail in the coffin'. José Peralta, chief executive of Hybu Cig Cymru/Meat Promotion Wales, said livestock numbers have dropped significantly and will likely continue to fall. Giving evidence on June 2, he warned: 'That poses a big question mark about how do we carry on in the future with an industry that remains competitive.' Kepak, a family owned business which runs a beef and lamb processing site in Merthyr Tydfil, employing 1,000 people, raised urgent and grave concerns about livestock numbers. In its written evidence, the company said: 'The efficiency and viability of our operations and the jobs that we provide rely on a critical mass of livestock.' Asked about the Welsh Government's 2021 vision for the industry, Mr Peralta said: 'It's a set of very nice and good aims but I struggle to see sometimes what's underneath that's going to drive all the different elements to get to that final aim.'
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
The world is dangerously close to a new crisis
Last week we saw yet again the power of the financial markets. Pretty much as soon as Rachel Reeves's tears were seen in the House of Commons, or Reevesgate as I shall call it, both the price of gilts and the pound fell, echoing on a much smaller scale what happened in reaction to the Truss/Kwarteng mini-Budget in 2022. Behind the human drama and the obsessions of the political class, there lurks a much more important problem. The elephant in the room is the appallingly high level of government debt, which is running at about 100pc of GDP. Last week's mini-crisis may simply be the harbinger of much worse to come. According to many on the Left, supported by some economists, nothing like this should happen. Do you remember the Magic Money Tree (MMT) that briefly flourished when Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour Party? Conveniently, the initials MMT also apply to the economic doctrine known as Modern Monetary Theory, which avers that governments can borrow from the markets willy nilly without consequence. You don't hear much about that idea these days. And with good reason. It is perfectly plain that there are limits to the markets' appetite for government debt. We have reached them. The UK's awkward position on public debt is by no means unique in the world. In the US, the so-called ' One Big Beautiful Bill' has just passed Congress. The consequence is going to be an increase in the US budget deficit. Indeed, it is difficult to see how this is going to come down anytime soon from its current rate of about 6pc of GDP. At present, the US debt ratio is running at about 100pc, but if the deficit continues at current levels, it is reasonable to suppose that the debt ratio will reach 120pc by the mid-2030s. The most acute worries around government debt in Europe are now focused not on Italy, where the debt ratio has stabilised, but on France. There, the debt ratio was 113pc last year and it is still rising. What is most concerning about France is the apparent unwillingness or inability of the government to reduce the deficit. Indeed, measures taken a few years ago by President Macron to reduce government spending by increasing the retirement age are again under threat. And if Marine Le Pen's party were to win power, it would probably increase government spending considerably. In many ways, though, the really interesting bond market is Japan's. (Interesting in the sense of the old Chinese curse.) For many years Japan was the poster child for all those people who argued that gargantuan government debt didn't matter. After all, for years its gross debt ratio was above 200pc. Yet for a long time the yield on these bonds was next to zero. Not any more. Against a backdrop of inflation having risen to over 3pc, the yield on Japan's 10-year government bonds has increased to 1.5pc. When the ratio of government debt to GDP reaches these levels in emerging markets then usually the prospect of default looms on the horizon. When a country borrows in its own currency, however, default can be avoided simply by printing more of the stuff. Mind you, this usually ends in inflation, which is a form of default by the back door. The US, Japan and the UK borrow in the currency that they issue. So default is not a worry. The same isn't true for countries within the eurozone because, although they borrow in their own currency, they have no control over its issuance. That rests with the European Central Bank. If it happens, a US recession could help to keep inflation subdued over the next year or two and that may forestall a bond market crisis. Yet, of course, that is a double-edged sword because any weakness in the economy will worsen the deficit. The same is true for the UK but the risk of a recession is probably lower here because we haven't suffered the tariff shock that President Trump has imposed on the US economy. As it is, over here recent signs on inflation have been fairly encouraging. If inflation does fall back convincingly, not only would that tend to encourage markets to take longer bond yields lower, but it would also encourage the Bank of England to cut short-term interest rates and that would tend to bring down short-term borrowing costs for the Government. But we face an acute vulnerability, namely the exchange rate. Of course, even the United States must confront this problem, although it is much less serious for them. For a start, as the world's largest economy and the issuer of the world's reserve currency, the US can get away with things that the rest of us cannot. Moreover, the US is a much less open economy than the UK and so any given percentage drop in the exchange rate has a smaller effect on inflation than it does here. Every financial crisis in Britain somehow or other involves the pound. Given our huge public indebtedness and very substantial international net liabilities, coupled with a still enormous current account deficit, we are seriously vulnerable to a loss of confidence. If the pound were to drop considerably, you could kiss goodbye to the prospect of lower interest rates and lower bond yields. Indeed, the opposite might happen. This is the significance of Reevesgate. Normally, the obsessions of politicians with this or that policy tweak and the manoeuvrings of particular individuals have very little significance. But in today's financial context, if the markets sniff the idea that Britain is about to enter a period of political chaos when the Government is unable or unwilling to stabilise the public finances, then they will move in for the kill. Whether the Chancellor is Reeves or someone else is not the important issue. The fundamental question is whether the Prime Minister has the will to assert his authority and control the public finances.
