Today’s PMQs

Im absolutely gob smacked with the comments and the usual blame game. The Tories and the Labs are 2 sides of the same coin hence the meteoric rise of Reform and most probably the next party to govern. BUT there is no disguising an undisputable fact that this Labour govt and the previous ones before it, just make a Clusterfuck of things despite all the finger pointing and excuses of who was in power before them. How many times do we have to be shown, Socialism and everything that comes with it, just doesnt work. Reform is the way forwards and they will make mistakes along the way but for heaven sakes, just STOP voting for a colour through blind alleigance.
 
BFC_53 said:
There is literally no-one in there that I think would make a good PM, on either side.
Click to expand...
I dunno, from the shadow cabinet, Jenrick actually qualified as a solicitor (Reynolds, take note); Stride, Philp, Cartlidge and others all have experience of founding and running a business, Patel is hated by the left so it would be worth it just to wind them up, I could go on.

The real problem is the Labour front bench are mostly just union activists and non-entities, if not outright frauds like Reynolds and Reeves.
 
Phil_bfc neuf said:
How do you know she's had a mental breakdown?

And anyway I thought it was more the case of you not liking her being called Rachel from accounts?
Click to expand...
Weve had reports her tears were triggered by an altercation with Lindsay Hoyle, but that doesn't match the current line that it’s a personal issue. Which was it if any...

Let's face it if the Chancellor was reduced to tears they'd have to come out with something.

We've been made to look a laughing stock on the world stage.

Imagine if that was a bloke crying what people would be saying and or if it was a Tory.
 
JJpool said:
Weve had reports her tears were triggered by an altercation with Lindsay Hoyle, but that doesn't match the current line that it’s a personal issue. Which was it if any...

Let's face it if the Chancellor was reduced to tears they'd have to come out with something.

We've been made to look a laughing stock on the world stage.

Imagine if that was a bloke crying what people would be saying and or if it was a Tory.
Click to expand...
I hope she's ok

Pray for Rachel
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20250702_222615_Facebook.jpg
    Screenshot_20250702_222615_Facebook.jpg
    202.4 KB · Views: 12
If you look at politics and political management it does seem a bit crazy that the first things that a Labour Chancellor targeted and rushed were the cuts to WFA and welfare cuts to the elderly and vurnerable, together with increases in taxes and other costs to businesses to supposedly "put the economy on a firm footing". There have been embarassing U turns on the first two and the third is already leading to job losses. And the unsustainable levels of proposed borrowing will probably not materially improve services. There won't be the growth or productivity gains to bail them out. It is inevitable that taxes will rise and cuts will be forced on them. I doubt they will be honest about that.
There appear to be very loud voices in the Labour Party that blame Reeves for targeting the wrong areas first and blame Starmer for being arrogant in not communicating with and listening to the backbench MPs and taking the big majorty for granted. Both have been severely weakened, but Starmer will keep Reeves as a buffer for further bad news on the economy and finances
 
Last edited:
This is yet another disaster for labour, you can’t have a chancellor sat there crying throughout question time and expect sympathy. If it was such a serious personal issue, she shouldn’t have been there and a full explanation given, if not, then the markets will not like an emotional chancellor.
 
Just so everyone knows, it was fine for Reeves to be laughing her head off when Starmer disrespectfully said to Liz Saville Roberts he has a “belief that she talks rubbish”… which of course he u-turned on and apologised… but it’s not fine or nice for people to call Reeves, Rachel from Accounts or to laugh at her. Nope that’s not fair on Rachel, but it’s ok for her to do it.

That sums up a lot of the thinking on this side of the board.

Laughable hypocrites.
 
This will add to her woes, the biggest company thinking of leaving London stock market for New York. Partly Trumps tarriffs of course, but the article also refers to higher wages osts as a result of the budget.IMG_4390.jpeg
 
On GBNEWS last night, it showed a close-up of Rachel Reeves face as Keir Starmer was asked whether she would still be in post. You could easily see her eyes focused on Starmer almost pleading for his support. When he just took a swipe at Kemi Badenoch, her chin started going. It was unbelievable to watch.
I hadn't noticed it when the original PM Question Time was on, but when my wife said that she wiped a tear from her cheek, at the time, I said that she'd probably been given the equivalent of a football chairman's dreaded vote of confidence to a manager on a losing streak.
To be fair, she was only ever the manager of an enquiry team whilst working at a bank and never equipped to be Chancellor, and is totally out of her depth.
 
Wizaard said:
It was nothing to do with anything Starmer said or did.

She'd had a big row with the Speaker just before going into the Chamber.
Click to expand...
It now appears so.

However, why did KS wait until the evening to back her?

Far too late in my book, the damage was already done.

The woman was distressed right the way through the whole episode and when asked the question by KB if her role was in danger, he did not back her, he instead, deflected the question to another subject. Typical Labour behaviour.

She needed the backing of her boss, an arm around her (if the is now allowed) to grow here confidence, and show she was still in favour.

So I make no apologies, the man is a disgrace to the male species and I stand by what I said about him.
 
Labour all over this

They really are a dispecable bunch, surely the PM should have supported Rachel from accounts when she was crying

The whole Labour government were unprepared to take power and are just fcuking things up by the day, its what happens when you have no plan and just try and wing it

Unbelievable really given they had so long as the opposition

Let's be honest Labour only got in because they weren't Tory and to be fair to Labour they did a really good job along with the media of discrediting the Conservative government at every opportunity, Labour are really good at sniping from the sidelines just dog sh!tat running the country

And if you voted for Labour you have got what you deserve

A clusterfcuk of epic proportions
 
Last edited:
The big problem for Starmer is that he is wedded to Reeves, he has backed her all the way until now.
If he gives her the sack it makes him more vulnerable and puts a big question mark over his judgement - it's like Truss after she booted Kwartang.
The markets fell and bond prices rose yesterday on the expectation of Reeves sacking - so it looks like the traders think that she is at least a better option than the uncertainty that would follow her departure. However, I am not sure how Reeves can recover from this, she is sort of dead in the water despite the belated backing of Starmer last night.
I would expect her to be replaced at some point in the future but perhaps in a future time of relative political calm when the fallout from this latest uturn has dissipated.
It's been a pretty poor first year for the government in terms of communication and a couple of disastrous policies and the uturns. There have been some good things as well, a few policies look reasonable. To me stability is very important but the government don't seem to be able to manage that despite their massive majority.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
The big problem for Starmer is that he is wedded to Reeves, he has backed her all the way until now.
If he gives her the sack it makes him more vulnerable and puts a big question mark over his judgement - it's like Truss after she booted Kwartang.
The markets fell and bond prices rose yesterday on the expectation of Reeves sacking - so it looks like the traders think that she is at least a better option than the uncertainty that would follow her departure. However, I am not sure how Reeves can recover from this, she is sort of dead in the water despite the belated backing of Starmer last night.
I would expect her to be replaced at some point in the future but perhaps in a future time of relative political calm when the fallout from this latest uturn has dissipated.
It's been a pretty poor first year for the government in terms of communication and a couple of disastrous policies and the uturns. There have been some good things as well, a few policies look reasonable. To me stability is very important but the government don't seem to be able to manage that despite their massive majority.
Click to expand...
Now she's been backed for the full term, the markets clearly don't think she's dead in the water
 
There was an interesting comment by Ed Balls this morning on GMB and which Jonathan Ashworth appeared to agree with. He said that the latter negotiations with the benefit rebels was done by Raynor and Kendall, not Starmer and Reeves or the Treasury. He said the that Reeves and the Treasury had lost control of the situation and there was the subsequent cave in. This might explain the rumours of a bust up with Raynor as well as Hoyle.
Despite Starmer's 'vote of confidence' I cannot see any possibility of Reeves still being there by the next election.
 
He'll get a backlash if he fires her. He'll get a backlash if he doesn't fire her. I can imagine the '10 year NHS' plan announcement has been brought forward to today as a deflection tactic.

Hardly a great 1st year in charge for them but politics has been a shit show for a while now, regardless of who's in. Possibly exacerbated by the Brexit referendum where everyone became so entrenched in their camps and social media algorithms that produce unverified content and people seemingly too lazy to site their source.
 
Phil_bfc neuf said:
Labour all over this

They really are a dispecable bunch, surely the PM should have supported Rachel from accounts when she was crying

The whole Labour government were unprepared to take power and are just fcuking things up by the day, its what happens when you have no plan and just try and wing it

Unbelievable really given they had so long as the opposition

Let's be honest Labour only got in because they weren't Tory and to be fair to Labour they did a really good job along with the media of discrediting the Conservative government at every opportunity, Labour are really good at sniping from the sidelines just dog sh!tat running the country

And if you voted for Labour you have got what you deserve

A clusterfcuk of epic proportions
Click to expand...
Imagine what the left would say if a Tory or Farage had failed to back a woman leading to her crying like that in PMQ's.

There is though an argument that's how a man would be treated so if people want true equality, in a harsh environment, these are the realities. They have to be able to handle it or shouldn't be there. You can't have ministers breaking down like that.
 
OxfordTangerine said:
He'll get a backlash if he fires her. He'll get a backlash if he doesn't fire her. I can imagine the '10 year NHS' plan announcement has been brought forward to today as a deflection tactic.

Hardly a great 1st year in charge for them but politics has been a shit show for a while now, regardless of who's in. Possibly exacerbated by the Brexit referendum where everyone became so entrenched in their camps and social media algorithms that produce unverified content and people seemingly too lazy to site their source.
Click to expand...
Fcuk all to do with Brexit

More to do with Labour being completely unprepared to run a government
 
JJpool said:
Imagine what the left would say if a Tory or Farage had failed to back a woman leading to her crying like that in PMQ's.

There is though an argument that's how a man would be treated so if people want true equality, in a harsh environment, these are the realities. They have to be able to handle it or shouldn't be there. You can't have ministers breaking down like that.
Click to expand...
If you watch PMQs, the PM is stood at the dispatch box looking across to the other side constantly, focused on what they're saying. Unless the box has wing mirrors, how is he supposed to see what's going on behind him?
 
Wizaard said:
If you watch PMQs, the PM is stood at the dispatch box looking across to the other side constantly, focused on what they're saying. Unless the box has wing mirrors, how is he supposed to see what's going on behind him?
Click to expand...
Could he not hear her blubbering
 
Wizaard said:
If you watch PMQs, the PM is stood at the dispatch box looking across to the other side constantly, focused on what they're saying. Unless the box has wing mirrors, how is he supposed to see what's going on behind him?
Click to expand...
Nonsense, he was sat next to her and knows she's looking different and he even looks round from the dispatch box oit the corner of his eye.

He knew.

In thier story she apparently had the personal issue yet he failed to back her up.

Nonsense.
 
Going back to that actual bill.......IT's GONE THROUGH.....and that's what government agencies wanted.....everything else is just your noise

Many of you Tory faithful should be jumping up and down, that they actually got a bill passed that's not undeniably...not fair.
This is not a bill that any Labour Government would have tried to raise 10 or 15 years ago......it's Tory lite at best

And no......it’s not a failure just because no one can clearly explain how it will stop people from trying to claim benefits, or how it will actually reduce the number of people eligible to do so under these lowered thresholds.
Some of you just see the word "Labour" and your ability to reason returns to your sphincter, so you can talk out of it.

Nobody can claim the savings it will make
Because Doris from Gateshead wont bother to claim for her various symptoms of 'Fibromyalgia'
Gail, Dave & Stuart, wont think of claiming because they all get anxious whenever they are trying out new things
Bob & Elsie will have to think elsewhere about getting help for their low level mood swings and will have to use therapies available on the NHS

While you just try and score points against each other or tell us that Farage would do better......with no actual proof or ideas
Someone's is actually doing it.
 
JJpool said:
Nonsense, he was sat next to her and knows she's looking different and he even looks round from the dispatch box oit the corner of his eye.

He knew.

In thier story she apparently had the personal issue yet he failed to back her up.

Nonsense.
Click to expand...
So saying she's here throughout the full term isn't backing her?

Nonsense.
 
Wizaard said:
If you watch PMQs, the PM is stood at the dispatch box looking across to the other side constantly, focused on what they're saying. Unless the box has wing mirrors, how is he supposed to see what's going on behind him?
Click to expand...
You seriously cant believe that utter shite you've posted?
Starmer sits down between every question asked not stood and often will talk to those sat next to him.

A blubbing female and he doesn't see it as if.🤥
 
Wizaard said:
So saying she's here throughout the full term isn't backing her?

Nonsense.
Click to expand...
He didn't say it when asked at the time. When she was looking at him desperately for some sign of support, he completely (as he often does) ignored the question.

They know when he starts deflecting and going on about the black hole etc, that it's a way of avoiding the question and you could she she knew when he started down that line of nonsense that he wasn't going to answer it.

If he answered it after why didn't he then?

Probably another U-Turn. 🙄
 
poolseasider said:
You seriously cant believe that utter shite you've posted?
Starmer sits down between every question asked not stood and often will talk to those sat next to him.

A blubbing female and he doesn't see it as if.
Click to expand...
Wizaard has morphed into a Yorkshire version of Comical Ali

"Ain't nowt tanks owt yonder"
 
Last edited:
Wizaard said:
If you watch PMQs, the PM is stood at the dispatch box looking across to the other side constantly, focused on what they're saying. Unless the box has wing mirrors, how is he supposed to see what's going on behind him?
Click to expand...
This username has turned into a fantastic parody account.

Give it a follow everyone.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Looks like the "personal matter" defence is falling apart: https://order-order.com/2025/07/04/...rsonal-matter-crying-excuse-is-total-bllocks/

A Downing Street tells Guido there is no one in the No10 political team who believes Reeves and “nobody here knows what the personal issue is.”
Click to expand...
Clearly bollox IMO, theres been too many different excuses, the arguments, the personal issue, the circumstances in that she'd just been humiliated by the party, failed to be backed by KS etc.

What a shambles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top