We can both sympathise with Reeves and not excuse the cuts

On Wednesday, 2nd July, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves was seen crying during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs). Reeves has stated that the reason for her tears was a personal issue, which she would rather not discuss in public. A perfectly reasonable request that I’m sure everyone can relate to.

I’ve had people close to me mock the Chancellor for displaying her emotions, calling it “unprofessional” and, in some cases, question whether Reeves is up for the job. These same people, to my knowledge, did not say anything when DUP politician Jim Shannon cried when questioning then Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Downing Street parties during lockdown. 

These situations are markedly different, presumably, but the fact remains that there is a disparity in the treatment of politicians here, despite both displaying emotion.

I’m prefacing my article with this statement as I want to stress a rather important point that I’m seeing being written off on social media: you can feel empathy for someone, even a public figure, and still hold them accountable.

The government’s welfare reforms, as I previously covered, are set to plunge 430,000 people into poverty by removing their access to Personal Independence Payments (PIP). It is a cruel policy that was meant to save £5.5 billion, which has now been shown not to be the case.

And Rachel Reeves, along with many other Labour MPs, has supported this policy, with Reeves arguably being a driving force behind it due to her strict self-imposed financial rules, which require government departments to make savings wherever possible.

But that leaves us with the question: SHOULD we feel bad for Rachel Reeves? Some have argued that this is not the case, as she is in a position of power and has used those powers to approve cuts to welfare for those who need it most. I struggle to abide by this view.

Years back, I wrote a piece for Lib Dem Voice documenting my mental health breakdown. To give the cliffnotes, my mental health declined quite rapidly during my master’s, resulting in me sobbing during a discussion with my supervisor and wanting to be here no longer. I know what it is like to have to hold it together while facing down demons. I may never have had, or will have, the responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I have experienced depression and anxiety, and still do to this day.

So in that regard, I empathise with Rachel Reeves. But that doesn’t mean I condone the cuts. Two things can be true at the same time.

* Jack Meredith is a Welsh Liberal Democrat member. He is the spokesperson for Centre Think Tank on Social Security.

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

One Comment

  • Mike Peters 4th Jul '25 - 5:01pm

    If I understand correctly, no one should be ‘plunged into poverty’ as no one will be having any cut to their current financial support. What may happen is that people currently in poverty will not be able to escape that poverty in future by claiming disability benefits due to different rules for entitlement, though some of those will receive some help by Universal Credit being increased.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

This post has pre moderation enabled, please be patient whilst waiting for it to be manually reviewed. Liberal Democrat Voice is made up of volunteers who keep the site running in their free time.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Simon McGrath
    I am afraid this article is an example of someone applying simplistic solutions in an area of which they are wholly ignorant. Even a cursory study of the vario...
  • Lin Macmillan
    I am very supportive of Christine and her decision. I am very unhappy that our MPs were not whipped to vote against the dreadful Tory amendment. I am also ver...
  • Richard Dickson
    Thank you Christine for all you've done, and doubtless will continue to do with great style, with and for people in our communities whose voice is often not lis...
  • Nigel Quinton
    “Whipped to abstain” - isn’t that the very definition of virtue signalling irrelevance? What an utter Westminster bubble farce....
  • Chris Lewcock
    Very poor group management. Christine should never have been pushed into this position....