&w=3840&q=100)
Who made Britain's Finance Minister Rachel Reeves cry in parliament?
Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves appears tearful during the Prime Minister's Questions (PMQ) session in the House of Commons. AFP
It's not often you see politicians crying in public; at least not in Parliament. But that's exactly what happened on Tuesday as UK's Chancellor Rachel Reeves was seen in tears during Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons.
Soon after the emotional scenes unfolded in the House of Commons, it became a huge talking point on social media with many criticising the Chancellor. The markets also reacted immediately, with the value of the pound plummeting against the dollar due to uncertainty over Reeve's future in the role.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
But what triggered Reeves to cry? Was it the hard questions being posed during the PMQs, was it a personal issue as her spokesperson stated, or was it a row with another Labour MP that caused the chancellor to break down emotionally?
What unfolded in the House of Commons?
The session in the House of Commons on Tuesday was set to be fiery as the Keir Starmer-led government U-turned over key welfare spending cuts, wiping out a multibillion-pound boost to public finances and triggering speculation that Chancellor Rachel Reeves could lose her job.
Starmer's U-turn has left an almost £5 billion black hole in Reeves' plans, leading to the possibility that she will have to raise taxes, something that she has repeatedly ruled out.
And as session began, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch laid into the government over its own U-turns. She charged that the chancellor would now have to raise taxes 'to pay for his incompetence' and asked if she would still be chancellor at the next election.
Badenoch then added that Reeves looked 'absolutely miserable'.
'Labour MPs are going on the record saying the chancellor is toast and the reality is that she is a human shield for his incompetence.
'In January, he said she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?' challenged Badenoch.
Rachel Reeves appeared to be crying on the Labour frontbench today.
Sir Keir Starmer refused to guarantee her future as Chancellor during Prime Minister's Questions.#Politics #PMQ #Labour pic.twitter.com/CGPFEm9wsr — Channel 5 News (@5_News) July 2, 2025
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The British PM, however, dodged the question and replied that Badenoch 'certainly won't'. To which, she responded, 'How awful for the Chancellor that he couldn't confirm that she would stay in place.'
Amid this back and forth, Chancellor Reeves was spotted wiping tears away from her cheek. As the session came to an end, Reeves was seen holding her sister, Ellie Reeves' hand in an apparent show of support.
Was tiff with Speaker the reason for Reeves' tears?
Some sources note that Chancellor Reeves' tears was a result of a bust-up she had with PM Starmer just before arriving in the chamber. However, the office of the PM and the chancellor has denied this claim. Reports of a bust-up with Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner were also denied.
However, other sources speaking to various news outlets pointed to the fact that Reeves had earlier been chastised by Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle for giving long answers during Treasury questions.
Britain's Speaker of the House of Commons Lindsay Hoyle in London, Britain. An apparent bust-up with him is believed to be the cause of Reeves's tears in parliament. File image/Reuters
It is reported that during the questions in the House of Commons, the Speaker had asked her three times to be more brief in her answers. The Telegraph notes that on the third time, he interrupted her and she replied: 'Oh, alright then.'
When asked about her tears and the so-called disagreement with the speaker, Reeves' team refused to comment, arguing that it was 'a personal matter'. 'As you would expect, we are not going to get into,' her spokesman said.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
What came next?
Soon after the Chancellor's emotional moment, dubbed as 'waterworksgate' by some, social media was abuzz — some criticising Reeves, others extending comfort to her.
One social media user wrote, 'I actually want to see Rachel Reeves cry more.' Another added on, 'Oh no Rachel Reeves is pretending to cry. It's a circus. Eastenders is more believable and does considerably less damage.'
But some also came out in her defence. One X user wrote, 'It doesn't matter what you think of Rachel Reeves this is a picture of a woman who has been crying a lot and overnight too to have such swollen eyes. Leave her alone. She's a politician yes, but she's a human being in distress. It's not ok to demand to know why or make her account for it.'
Away from social media, Reeves' tears also saw an impact on the UK markets. The pound dropped by one per cent against the dollar, ending its strong run against a weaker US currency. Moreover, borrowing costs also soared in one of the biggest single-day moves since October 2022 when markets were in turmoil after former Prime Minister Liz Truss' mini-budget, which eventually led to her downfall.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves. File image/Reuters
How has PM Starmer reacted?
Following the drama, British PM Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said extended support to his finance minister, saying she would remain in her role for 'a very long time to come'. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Political Thinking, Starmer said that Reeves was 'doing an excellent job as chancellor'.
He further insisted that Reeves' tears had 'nothing to do with politics'.
When pushed on the welfare U-turns, he responded, 'That's absolutely wrong. It's nothing to do with what's happened this week. It was a personal matter for her, I'm not going to intrude on her privacy by talking to you.'
Downing Street has also said Reeves has the PM's 'full backing'. Asked why Starmer did not confirm in the Commons that he still had faith Reeves, the PM's press secretary said: 'He has done so repeatedly.
'The Chancellor is going nowhere. She has the prime minister's full backing.'
The secretary also added, 'He has said it plenty of times, he doesn't need to repeat it every time the Leader of the Opposition speculates about Labour politicians. The Chancellor and the prime minister are focused entirely on delivering for working people.'
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Google's AI Overviews hit by EU antitrust complaint from independent publishers
Alphabet's Google has been hit by an EU antitrust complaint over its AI Overviews from a group of independent publishers, which has also asked for an interim measure to prevent allegedly irreparable harm to them, according to a document seen by Reuters. Google's AI Overviews are AI-generated summaries that appear above traditional hyperlinks to relevant webpages and are shown to users in more than 100 countries. It began adding advertisements to AI Overviews last May. The company is making its biggest bet by integrating AI into search but the move has sparked concerns from some content providers such as publishers. The Independent Publishers Alliance document, dated June 30, sets out a complaint to the European Commission and alleges that Google abuses its market power in online search. "Google's core search engine service is misusing web content for Google's AI Overviews in Google Search, which have caused, and continue to cause, significant harm to publishers, including news publishers in the form of traffic, readership and revenue loss," the document said. It said Google positions its AI Overviews at the top of its general search engine results page to display its own summaries which are generated using publisher material and it alleges that Google's positioning disadvantages publishers' original content. "Publishers using Google Search do not have the option to opt out from their material being ingested for Google's AI large language model training and/or from being crawled for summaries, without losing their ability to appear in Google's general search results page," the complaint said. The Commission declined to comment. The UK's Competition and Markets Authority confirmed receipt of the complaint. Google said it sends billions of clicks to websites each day. "New AI experiences in Search enable people to ask even more questions, which creates new opportunities for content and businesses to be discovered," a Google spokesperson said. The Independent Publishers Alliance's website says it is a nonprofit community advocating for independent publishers, which it does not name. The Movement for an Open Web, whose members include digital advertisers and publishers, and British non-profit Foxglove Legal Community Interest Company, which says it advocates for fairness in the tech world, are also signatories to the complaint. They said an interim measure was necessary to prevent serious irreparable harm to competition and to ensure access to news. Google said numerous claims about traffic from search are often based on highly incomplete and skewed data. "The reality is that sites can gain and lose traffic for a variety of reasons, including seasonal demand, interests of users, and regular algorithmic updates to Search," the Google spokesperson said. Foxglove co-executive director Rosa Curling said journalists and publishers face a dire situation. "Independent news faces an existential threat: Google's AI Overviews," she told Reuters. "That's why with this complaint, Foxglove and our partners are urging the European Commission, along with other regulators around the world, to take a stand and allow independent journalism to opt out," Curling said. The three groups have filed a similar complaint and a request for an interim measure to the UK competition authority. The complaints echoed a U.S. lawsuit by a U.S. edtech company which said Google's AI Overviews is eroding demand for original content and undermining publishers' ability to compete that have resulted in a drop in visitors and subscribers.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Eat butter in peace, or be toast in war
Ukraine is not a rich country. The average Ukrainian earns the equivalent of $15,885 - PPP terms - in a year, which is 75% more than the average Indian but slightly less than the average Iranian. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now To catch up with neighbours like Romania ($40,304) and Poland ($43,625), Ukraine must spend more on development, but last year it spent a third of its GDP fighting Russia. Where India with a $4tn economy had a $75bn defence budget in 2024, Ukraine spent $65bn on defence from its meagre and stagnant $180bn GDP. Guns Vs Butter That's the guns/butter trade-off of war. You can have more of one only at the cost of the other. As Eisenhower said: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed..." It was 1953 and, perhaps, Eisenhower remembered how 3mn Indians had starved to death in the Bengal famine a decade earlier. Historians say the calamity wasn't caused by drought but the misplaced priorities of Churchill's wartime cabinet. True, there was a shortage of grain in Bengal in 1943, but London made it worse by continuing to export rice from the province for British troops. The price of grain skyrocketed, and when Indian officials sought an emergency supply of wheat, London declined. Saving Empire became more important than saving people. People suffer It doesn't matter who imposes war on whom - whether Russia invades Ukraine or Afghanistan erupts in civil war - non-combatants pay a high price. A UN Women research paper shows how the Afghan govt spent 37% of its budget on defence and policing in 2019, as against 6% on health. In Mali, another war-torn country, defence expenditure in 2017 was five times higher than the outlay for social programmes. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Contrast that with Kiel Institute's data for G7 nations. Over a 90-year period, from 1872 to 1962, their military expenditure exceeded social programmes, dipping below 20% of their budget only once, immediately after WW-1. But today, these nations spend less than 10% of their budget on defence, as against more than 40% on social expenditure. Under pressure from Trump, Nato members have pledged to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, but don't count on it. No winners War can spur the economy - as it's done in Russia - by increasing demand for killing machines, but data shows a dollar spent on the military produces fewer jobs than a dollar spent on infrastructure, health, education, etc. The Vietnam war may have been good for US defence contractors, but it hurt ordinary Americans by starting an inflation spiral that lasted till the 80s. Likewise, the post-9/11 American wars diverted money away from infrastructure and the social sector, and have run up an $8tn bill. So, guns or butter? Sometimes, countries - like Ukraine - don't have a choice, but when they do - like Russia - they should pick butter, and a loaf of Borodinsky.
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
‘Promises kept': Donald Trump signs ‘Big Beautiful Bill' at the White House July 4 picnic
In a dramatic and highly orchestrated moment timed with 4th of July Independence Day celebrations, US President Donald Trump on Friday signed into law his much-touted 'Big Beautiful Bill' — a sweeping legislative package of tax breaks, welfare cuts, and immigration enforcement measures that could define his second-term legacy. Speaking at a desk set up on the White House driveway and flanked by Republican allies and Cabinet members, Trump declared, 'Promises made, promises kept, and we've kept them.' As Fourth of July picnickers watched on, the signing was followed by a thunderous flyover featuring fighter jets and stealth bombers, a tribute, Trump said, to last month's bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities. 'America's winning, winning, winning like never before,' he added, visibly energised during his 22-minute address before enacting the multitrillion-dollar bill. The legislation, passed on a narrow party-line vote, extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts and delivers on several core campaign promises, including: No taxes on tips or Social Security income $1.2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and food stamp programmes Expanded immigration enforcement Rollbacks of Obama- and Biden-era healthcare and climate policies Trump described the measure as a rocket boost for the American economy, telling supporters, 'Our country is going to be a rocket ship, economically, because of this legislation.' The bill passed the Senate by a single vote, with Republican Senator J.D. Vance casting the tie-breaker. North Carolina's Thom Tillis, who opposed the bill, later announced he would not seek re-election after facing Trump's public ire. Notably, not a single Democrat voted in favour. Conservative Representative Tom Massie of Kentucky was one of only two Republican dissenters and has since become a target of Trump's political machine. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the package will add $3.3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade and result in 11.8 million more Americans losing health coverage. Critics warn the bill is a massive wealth transfer from working-class Americans to the ultra-rich. Labour unions and Democratic leaders launched scathing attacks on the legislation immediately after it was signed. AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler stated: 'Today, Donald Trump signed into law the worst job-killing bill in American history. It will rip health care from 17 million workers to pay for massive tax giveaways to the wealthy and big corporations, amounting to the country's largest money grab from the working class to the ultra-rich.' 'Every member of Congress who voted for this devastating bill picked the pockets of working people to hand billionaires a $5 trillion gift.' Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin echoed those sentiments, calling the law 'devastating' and claiming it 'sealed the fate of the Republican Party, cementing them as the party for billionaires and special interests — not working families.' Unfazed by the criticism, Trump claimed Democrats opposed the bill out of 'hatred of either the country or me or both,' adding, 'We can't let them get away with it.' 'It's actually just the opposite, everybody's going to live,' Trump said in response to warnings that the bill would harm millions. 'And I just want you to know, if you see anything negative put out by Democrats, it's all a con job.' In a speech in Iowa a day earlier, he added, 'They hate Trump — but I hate them, too.' While Donald Trump insisted the package is 'very popular,' polling paints a more complex picture. A Washington Post/Ipsos poll revealed: Majority support for eliminating taxes on tips and increasing the child tax credit Divided views on work requirements for Medicaid recipients Majority opposition to cuts in food assistance and billions spent on migrant detention centres 60% of respondents found the expected $3 trillion rise in the national debt to be 'unacceptable' With the 2026 midterms on the horizon, Democrats are mobilising to make the legislation a central campaign issue. Plans are underway for rallies, ad campaigns, bus tours and vigils to spotlight what they call the most damaging elements of the law. With the signing of the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' Trump has delivered a long-promised conservative victory that could resonate for years — or backfire at the ballot box. Its impact on American families, the healthcare system, and the national debt will be central to political debates ahead. As the fireworks faded over Washington, one thing was clear: the battle over Trump's most ambitious legislative move is only just beginning.
