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.
One Comment
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.