Rachel Reeves speaks out after she broke down in tears in the House of Commons
Rachel Reeves said she was 'clearly upset' during Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, but she felt it was her job to be on the front bench.
The Chancellor spoke out for the first time since breaking down in tears as Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch faced off against Sir Keir Starmer in the House of Commons.
Afterwards, her spokesperson declined to give more details about why she appeared to be so distressed, saying only it was a 'personal matter'.
At an event to unveil the government's 10-year plan for the NHS in England this afternoon, Reeves also declined to share more information about the situation.
She said: '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.
Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here.
'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 lack of a clear explanation for Reeves' emotion has led to some speculation about whether it was a result of her role or relationships with colleagues.
She appeared to have a disagreement with Speaker Lindsay Hoyle ahead of PMQs over her response to being told to keep her answers short in an earlier Parliamentary session.
Other reports of rows with Deputy PM Angela Rayner or Starmer himself have, however, been denied.
And in his interview with the BBC, the Prime Minister said: 'It's got nothing to do with politics, 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 about that, it's a personal matter.'
However, Conservative MP Alicia Kearns questioned the decision to keep the Chancellor on the front bench for the session regardless of the reasons. More Trending
She wrote on X: 'Rachel shouldn't have been put on the frontbench today. Those around her should have protected her as is their duty as her friends and colleagues.
'They should also have recognised a Chancellor's demeanour affects confidence in our economy which they have a duty to protect as well.'
Bond yields – a key measure of economic trust in the UK government – rose during uncertainty over whether Reeves would remain in her role, before falling again this morning amid reassurance she would stay.
Got a story? Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk. Or you can submit your videos and pictures here.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
Follow Metro.co.uk on Twitter and Facebook for the latest news updates. You can now also get Metro.co.uk articles sent straight to your device. Sign up for our daily push alerts here.
MORE: Everything you need to know about the government's new NHS 10-year plan
MORE: What Rachel Reeves' tears at PMQs say about the government and Labour
MORE: Crying at work is embarrassing — but it can reveal your biggest strength
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Keir Starmer should be bold and consider a wealth tax, Neil Kinnock says
Keir Starmer's government is suffering from a 'lack of narrative' about what it is trying to achieve and should be more fiscally bold and consider a tax on wealth, Neil Kinnock has said. The former Labour leader said too many of the government's achievements were being overshadowed. A year after a landslide election win, the party is struggling in the polls and has U-turned on policies including cuts to winter fuel payments and welfare. 'It's not a mess, but what has gone wrong is really the lack of a narrative, a story of the objectives of the government and where they're working towards it and how they're working towards it,' Kinnock said. The government had implemented 'a series of really commendable and absolutely essential policies', added Kinnock, who led Labour into two elections. But these policies, he said, had been obscured by controversies over things such winter fuel and welfare, 'all those negative things that really are heartily disliked across the Labour movement and more widely'. 'And that means that, apart from the distaste for undertaking those policies, the cloud hangs over the accomplishments of the government, which are substantial and will become greater.' Kinnock was scathing about the move by Jeremy Corbyn and other former Labour MPs to set up their own leftwing party. 'I understand the difficulty of thinking up a name, and in a comradely way, I'd suggest one: It would be the Farage Assistance Group.' Amid increasing speculation that Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, will have to raise taxes at the autumn budget, Kinnock said that while Labour's election focus on fiscal discipline was vital for restoring credibility, 'it did mean that they depressed expectations and limited themselves by saying they were going to rigidly stick to fiscal rules'. Kinnock said there was a risk of the government being 'bogged down by their own imposed limitations' and he believed a number of cabinet ministers would want more fiscal boldness. One option, he said, would be a form of wealth tax, which would be useful not just to raise revenue but as 'a gesture, or a substantial gesture in the direction of equity fairness would make a big difference' in a time when 'earned incomes have stagnated in real terms, while asset values have zoomed'. He said such a policy should target wealth above £6m or £7m, where a 2% tax would raise £10bn or £11bn a year. 'That's not going to pay all the bills, but it does two things. One is to secure resources, which is very important. But the second thing it does is to say to the country: we are the government of equity, and this is a country which is very substantially fed up with the fact that whatever happens in the world, whatever happens in the UK, the same interests come out on top, unscathed all the time, while everybody else is paying more for gutted services.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Met commissioner calls for the axing of 43 county constabularies and the forming of '12 mega forces'
Sir Mark Rowley has called for Britain's 43 county constabularies to be axed and replaced with 12 'mega forces' in what would be the biggest overhaul of policing in 60 years. In a damning review of UK's crime fighting set up, the Met Police boss said the current system has not 'been fit for purpose for at least two decades'. Writing in The Sunday Times, Sir Mark said that bigger forces would be better able to utilise modern technology and would reduce 'expensive' governance and support functions. He said slashing the number of forces by two-thirds would make 'better use of the 'limited funding available' in a thinly veiled dig at Chancellor Rachel Reeves. Sir Mark said: 'The 43-force model was designed in the 1960s and hasn't been fit for purpose for at least two decades. 'It hinders the effective confrontation of today's threats and stops us fully reaping the benefits of technology. 'We need to reduce the number of forces by two-thirds, with the new bigger and fully capable regional forces supported by the best of modern technology and making better use of the limited funding available.' He characterised Chancellor Rachel Reeves ' decision to increase police funding by 2.3 per cent above inflation each year in the recent spending review as 'disappointing'. Gavin Stephens, chairman of the National Police Chiefs' Council, last month warned forces were facing 'difficult choices' and some would 'struggle to make the numbers add up' as the cost of borrowing spirals. Some have increasingly relied on borrowing, and the cost of debt is expected to rise by 49 per cent in the next three years. 'Forces' borrowing costs have been going up because for the last decade, local forces have had no capital investment at all,' he said. 'The main capital investment has gone to big projects at the centre.' Force chiefs want greater say over how they structure their workforces, with the removal of restrictions on ring-fenced funding that was granted by the previous government to replace officers cut during austerity. Mr Stephens said policing needs a variety of workers other than officers, including cyber specialists, crime scene investigators and digital forensic experts, in the same way that 'the health service is much more than just about doctors'. He added: 'We know that the Government had some very difficult choices to make, as a consequence of this, policing is going to have some very difficult choices to make too.' Sir Mark has previously warned of 'eye-watering cuts' to Britain's largest police force with it revealed in April it faces a £260million funding hole in its budget. It will see the loss of 1,700 officers, PCOs and staff, although frontline services would be protected. However, other areas will face cuts including scrapping the Royal Parks Police, a 10 per cent cut to forensics, and the possibility of taking firearms off the Flying Squad. London Mayor Sadiq Khan last month delivered a public rebuke to Ms Reeves as he warned her spending plans risk ' levelling down London '. Sir Sadiq said he was 'disappointed' that the review unveiled by the Chancellor had not committed to new infrastructure in the capital. He also condemned the funding settlement for the police, saying the Met might have 'fewer police officers' as a result. Despite Labour's massive borrowing-funded spending splurge, some areas are facing tough restrictions due to the NHS sucking up huge resources. Yvette Cooper's Home Office is thought to have been one of the losers, with police funding seeing limited real-terms increases despite a pledge to recruit 13,000 more officers and staff for neighbourhoods in England and Wales.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Starmer's approval ratings at lowest level since becoming PM after welfare chaos
Sir Keir Starmer 's approval rating has hit an all time low, with voters blaming him for the chaotic £5bn U-turn on his benefit cuts. The prime minister 's support among the public reached fresh depths after the climbdown and in the wake of Rachel Reeves being seen crying in the Commons, a new poll shows. Conducted in the hours after Wednesday's PMQs, the More in Common survey found Sir Keir's approval rating at -43. The poll, first reported by The Sunday Times, also found that just a year after coming to power, seven in 10 voters think Sir Keir's government is at least as chaotic as the Tories' previous term. That includes one in three voters, who believe it is more so. More in Common's UK director Luke Tryl said: 'It is an unhappy birthday for the prime minister, his personal approval has hit an all time low, while Britons blame him rather than his chancellor for the welfare mess and think he has lost control of his party.' Mr Tryl said the 'big winner' from the government's failings is Reform UK. 'Although we are a long way from an election and much will change, Nigel Farage 's Party are demonstrating that they are now close to the level where they could command an outright majority. Britain's political landscape has transformed entirely from just a year ago,' Mr Tryl said. More in Common's poll found that Reform would emerge as the biggest party if an election were held tomorrow, winning 290 seats. Labour 's vote would collapse, falling from having won 412 seats last July to just 126. And the Conservatives would win just 81 seats, 40 fewer than at the last general election. More in Common's MRP, often dubbed a mega poll, showed that a majority of cabinet ministers would lose their seats as things stand. Those whose seats are vulnerable include Angela Rayner, Reeves, Pat McFadden, Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting, Bridget Phillipson, Ed Miliband and more. The main reason voters gave for turning away from Labour was broken promises and U-turns on previous commitments, More in Common said. More than a third said they were turning away from Labour due to the ongoing cost of living crisis, while more than a quarter said they had been put off Labour by the party's cuts to winter fuel payments. Labour has been haemorrhaging support to Mr Farage's party, with Reform surging in May's local elections, taking control of 10 councils and winning the Runcorn by-election. The poll came after Sir Keir's chancellor was warned she must raise taxes or put Labour's agenda at risk. Jim O'Neill, a former Goldman Sachs chief turned Treasury minister who quit the Conservatives and later advised Reeves, said she faces no choice but to abandon key parts of her economic policy – including her commitment not to raise income tax, national insurance contributions for employees or VAT. 'Without changing some of the big taxes, welfare and pensions, they [Labour] can't commit to things like Northern Powerhouse Rail, small modular nuclear reactors, and various other things that will make an investment and growth difference,' he told The Independent.
