The chancellor Rachel Reeves has faced backlash online after a teary appearance during Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons.
Reeves appeared visibly emotional during the debate today, sitting behind Keir Starmer as he was questioned by the Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch about her work as chancellor and future in the role. Badenoch suggested that Labour MPs had called Reeves 'toast' and suggested Keir Starmer failed to confirm Reeves' future as chancellor, amid speculation that he was going to initiate a cabinet reshuffle to maintain his authority.
Badenoch told the Commons Reeves looked 'absolutely miserable' as she wiped away tears, and described her as a 'human shield' for what she called No 10’s incompetence. Her sister Ellie Reeves, who is also a Labour minister, appeared to hold her hand as she left the chamber. Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, also seemed to comfort Reeves by mouthing some words.
After the fiery PMQs, Downing Street quickly gave its backing to Reeves, with aides saying she was 'going nowhere' and that there would not be a reshuffle. A spokesperson for Reeves said: 'It’s a personal matter, which – as you would expect – we are not going to get into.'
Since the incident, lots of people have taken to X to criticise Reeves. 'I actually want to see rachel reeves cry more,' one user wrote. Another penned 'Oh no Rachel Reeves is pretending to cry. It's a circus. Eastenders is more believable and does considerably less damage.' The markets have also reacted immediately, with the value of the pound plummeting against the dollar due to uncertainty over Reeve's future in the role.
Lots of the criticism online is centred around Reeves' position on disability and benefit cuts. In March, Reeves delivered her spring Statement, which reinforced Labour’s plans to make cuts to welfare. This included tightening the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments (PIP) which could see an estimated 800,000 to 1.2 million people lose thousands of pounds every year.
Certainly, much of this criticism is valid given the impact the cuts will have on vulnerable people's lives. But when this online discourse turns to hateful trolling, or vitriolic comments towards Reeves for simply expressing emotion, is that ever justified? One of the main criticisms thrown at politicians is that they aren't human enough, or they're too far removed from the rest of us to be making decisions about how we live our lives. It's something Reeves herself has been criticised for in the past, with people calling her 'robotic' and 'bereft of emotion.'
Now that she has showed emotion, it's been interpreted as a sign of weakness, automatically assumed to be inauthentic, or becomes an excuse for an internet pile on. When it comes to expressing emotion, it seems female politicians really can't win.
Others online came to 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.'
Another user penned 'I’m not a mega Rachel Reeves fan, but the jibes over her crying are a bit cruel. There’s nothing wrong with crying. I can’t even listen to Schubert without shedding tears.'
And that's exactly the point. Politicians are regularly criticised for being wildly out of touch with our everyday lives, and often for justified reasons. But at the end of the day, they are human just like the rest of us. Whatever you think of Reeves' politics, shedding a tear at a heated moment is never an excuse for a cruel internet pile on.
Alice Hall is Staff Writer at Grazia UK. At Grazia, she writes news and features about pop culture, health, politics and interiors.