Rachel Reeves insists she is ‘cracking on with the job' after Commons upset
Ms Reeves would not, however, be drawn into answering questions about the 'personal matter' which had upset her ahead of Wednesday's Prime Minister's Questions.
She told broadcasters: 'Clearly I was upset yesterday and everyone could see that. It was a personal issue and I'm not going to go into the details of that.
'My job as Chancellor at 12 o'clock on a Wednesday is to be at PMQs next to the Prime Minister, supporting the Government and that's what I tried to do.
'I guess the thing that maybe is a bit different between my job and many of your viewers' is that when I'm having a tough day it's on the telly and most people don't have to deal with that.'
The Chancellor rejected suggestions that her tears were related to a conversation with Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle or another member of Government.
'People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday. Today's a new day and I'm just cracking on with the job,' she added.
Sir Keir gave a full-throated defence of his Chancellor, and said he had not appreciated how upset she was while he was focused on the cut and thrust of Parliament's most-viewed weekly event.
On Thursday, the Chancellor appeared alongside the Prime Minister and Health Secretary Wes Streeting as the Government launched it's 10-year plan for the NHS in London.
Ms Reeves made no mention of Wednesday's incident in the Commons as she made her first public appearance since crying in the chamber.
Smiling as she spoke at a health centre in London, the Chancellor insisted the NHS plan was 'good for the health of our nation and good for the health of our nation's finances'.
She also stopped to take selfies with nurses and other healthcare staff who were gathered for the launch.
Sir Keir and Ms Reeves embraced as he made his way to the podium to give a speech after the Chancellor had finished.
The Prime Minister poured praise upon her in an open show of unity, hailing the decisions made by the Chancellor as playing a part in the Government investing 'record amounts in the NHS'.
Sir Keir said he did not 'appreciate' that Ms Reeves was crying behind him at PMQs as the event is 'pretty wired'.
'It goes from question to question and I am literally up, down, question, looking at who is asking me a question, thinking about my response and getting up and answering it,' he said.
Sir Keir added: 'It wasn't just yesterday. No prime minister ever has had side conversations in PMQs. It does happen in other debates when there is a bit more time, but in PMQs it is bang, bang, bang, bang.
'That is what it was yesterday and therefore I was probably the last to appreciate anything else going on in the chamber.'
As the Prime Minister took questions from the media, several journalists invited Ms Reeves to comment on her tears, but only Sir Keir answered.
Earlier, the Prime Minister said all people could be caught 'off guard' by their emotions, but the Chancellor had to deal with it while on camera in Parliament.
He said she was doing an 'excellent' job, would remain in place beyond the next general election, and that they were both absolutely committed to the Chancellor's 'fiscal rules' to maintain discipline over the public finances.
UK Government bonds rallied and the pound steadied on Thursday, after reassurances from the Prime Minister about the Chancellor's future.
The sight of her in tears on Wednesday, and the £5 billion black hole in her public spending plans as a result of the welfare U-turn had spooked the markets, triggering a sharp sell-off of bonds, with the yield seeing the sharpest increase since US President Donald Trump's tariff plans shook up financial markets in April.
Back in the Commons chamber, Commons Leader Lucy Powell defended her 'friend' Ms Reeves, and said 'she's got more class than most of the rest of the members opposite on the frontbench'.
Leadership is hard. There are good days, some very good, and bad days, some very bad. The resilience you need for top jobs is superhuman.
But if a Chief Exec cried in public, if a military chief said they hadn't read the operational plan properly because they had a bad day,…
— Claire Coutinho (@ClaireCoutinho) July 3, 2025
The Conservatives meanwhile suggested Ms Reeves' public show of emotion was not acceptable.
In a post on X shared by Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho said: 'Leadership is hard. There are good days, some very good, and bad days, some very bad. The resilience you need for top jobs is superhuman.
'But if a chief exec cried in public, if a military chief said they hadn't read the operational plan properly because they had a bad day, they would not be forgiven for it.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
41 minutes ago
- Leader Live
High Court judge refuses to temporarily block Palestine Action terror ban
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from banning the group as a terrorist organisation before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move is set to come into force at midnight after a High Court judge refused Ms Ammori's bid for a temporary block. Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Lawyers for Ms Ammori were also refused permission to appeal and were told to go to the Court of Appeal itself. Shortly after the decision was handed down, Ms Ammori said that she would be 'seeking an urgent appeal to try to prevent a dystopian nightmare of the Government's making'. She added: 'The Home Secretary is rushing through the implementation of the proscription at midnight tonight despite the fact that our legal challenge is ongoing and that she has been completely unclear about how it will be enforced, leaving the public in the dark about their rights to free speech and expression after midnight tonight when this proscription comes into effect. 'Hundreds of thousands of people across the country have expressed support for Palestine Action by joining our mailing list, following and sharing our social media content and signing petitions, and many, including iconic figures like Sally Rooney, say they will continue to declare 'we are all Palestine Action' and speak out against this preposterous proscription, demonstrating how utterly unworkable it will be.' In a 26-page judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain said that 'some of the consequences feared by the claimant and others who have given evidence are overstated'. He continued: 'It will remain lawful for the claimant and other persons who were members of Palestine Action prior to proscription to continue to express their opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza and elsewhere, including by drawing attention to what they regard as Israel's genocide and other serious violations of international law. 'They will remain legally entitled to do so in private conversations, in print, on social media and at protests.' He added: 'That said, there is no doubt that there will be serious consequences if the order comes into effect immediately and interim relief is refused.' The proposal was approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords earlier this week and would make membership and support for the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Some 81 organisations are already proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Hamas, al Qaida and National Action. At a hearing on Friday, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, asked the court to suspend the 'ill-considered' and 'authoritarian abuse of statutory power' until a hearing due around July 21. Mr Husain told the London court: 'This is the first time in our history that a direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists.' The barrister said that his client had been 'inspired' by a long history of direct action in the UK, 'from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid activists, to Iraq war activists'. The hearing later in July is expected to deal with whether Ms Ammori can bring a High Court challenge over the planned proscription. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that there was no 'express provision' to protect lawyers representing her in the potential legal challenge from criminal consequences if the ban came into effect. She also said that if the ban came into effect the harm would be 'far-reaching', could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh later named Normal People author Sally Rooney, who lives abroad and 'fears the ramifications for her, for her work, for her books, for her programmes' if she shows support for Palestine Action. 'Is the Prime Minister going to denounce her, an Irish artist, as a supporter of a proscribed organisation?' 'Will that have ramifications for her with the BBC, etc?' Ms Ni Ghralaigh asked. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the ban of Palestine Action. The barrister also said that if a temporary block was granted, it would be a 'serious disfigurement of the statutory regime'. He said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Friday's hearing comes after an estimated £7 million worth of damage was caused to two Voyager planes at RAF Brize Norton on June 20, in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. Four people were charged in connection with the incident.
Leader Live
42 minutes ago
- Leader Live
What is a proscribed organisation?
On Thursday the House of Lords backed proscribing the group under the Terrorism Act 2000 without a vote. But what is proscription and what does it mean for an organisation to be proscribed? – What is a proscribed organisation? According to the Government website, under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do so. Under the law this means the organisation commits or takes part in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism), or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Once an organisation is proscribed it is illegal to join or show support for it. – What does terrorism mean when talking about proscription? As defined in the Act, terrorism means the use or threat of action which involves serious violence against a person, involves serious damage to property, endangers a person's life (other than that of the person committing the act), creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The definition also sets out that the use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public. Additionally, it must be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. – What factors are taken into consideration when determining whether proscription is proportionate? According to the Government website, the Home Secretary will take into account the nature and scale of an organisation's activities, the specific threat that it poses to the country, and the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas. The Home Secretary will also consider the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK, and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. – Which other groups have been designated as proscribed organisations? There are currently 81 international terrorist groups proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 and 14 organisations in Northern Ireland proscribed under previous legislation. The most recent proscription orders concerned Hamas, the Wagner Group, Hizb ut Tahrir and Terrorgram. Other organisations on the list include Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), and various aliases, and al Qaida. – Once an organisation is proscribed, what becomes illegal? It becomes a criminal offence to belong, or profess to belong, to a proscribed organisation in the UK or overseas, or invite support for a proscribed organisation. It is also illegal to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation, express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation. Other offences include arranging, managing or assisting in arranging or managing a meeting in the knowledge that the meeting is to support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, or publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag or logo, in the same circumstances. – Once proscribed, will an organisation remain banned forever? No. The Home Secretary will consider deproscription on application only. The law allows any organisation or any person affected by a proscription to submit a signed, written application to the Home Secretary requesting that they consider whether a specified organisation should be removed from the list of proscribed organisations.
Leader Live
42 minutes ago
- Leader Live
MPs back move to protect llamas and alpacas from dog attacks
Dog owners already face a fine if their pet attacks or worries farm animals listed in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, such as cattle, sheep, pigs and horses. But after a Commons debate, MPs have agreed to add 'camelids' to this list, giving llamas and alpacas in England and Wales similar protections as they have in Scotland. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill, which now faces further scrutiny in the Lords at a later date, will also see unlimited fines rolled out in dog attack cases, lifting a £1,000 cap. 'They're no laughing matter, alpacas and llamas,' Labour MP Peter Lamb said. 'The Inca empire never developed the wheel. 'The entirety of that empire was built off the back of alpacas and llamas and, as a result, they are an animal that's worthy of great respect.' Mr Lamb said he had heard of 'pretty harrowing cases of what happened to that livestock' at a centre in Tilgate Park in Crawley, West Sussex, where he was the borough council leader. 'In one case, a sheep was just literally set on fire whilst still alive and while the Bill does not directly deal with that, I think some of the mentality that goes into disrespecting these animals is worthy of note,' he said. 'But what we have done is very often, far more often than that, had dogs set on these animals, or at least, people have not been in control of these. 'And we've eventually had to remove the sheep entirely from the publicly accessible areas on the basis of that.' Conservative MP for Chester South and Eddisbury Aphra Brandreth, who proposed the private member's Bill, told the Commons: 'Livestock worrying, as we know, has devastating consequences for both animals and farmers.' She added: 'The damage of a livestock attack can be horrific, causing brutal injuries which are tragically often fatal. 'There are instances of stress causing pregnant livestock to miscarry, and separation of mothers and young leading to hypothermia or starvation. 'I've seen pictures from farmers in my constituency where attacks have mutilated their calves beyond any hope of keeping them alive. 'The consequences, no matter what the scale of an attack, are profound.' As part of the draft new law, authorities would get the powers to treat attacking livestock as separate to 'worrying', which includes chasing farm animals in a way which could cause injury, suffering or loss or 'diminution in their produce'. The Bill would also expand the 1953 Act's scope, which applies on agricultural land, to roads and paths, where animals might be herded. Labour MP Mike Reader praised Ms Brandreth for her 'responsible and balanced approach'. The Northampton South MP said it was 'positive that this expands that definition to roads and paths, because it sets clear requirements that when someone is accessing land, particularly throughout Northamptonshire where there're so many paths that run through farmland, there's a clear definition in the law to both protect farmers but also to set clear boundaries for those who are perhaps walking their dogs… when they access farmland'. Environment minister Emma Hardy said the Government was 'fully committed to supporting this important Bill as it progresses through the other place', before the Bill cleared the Commons at third reading.
