When the PM was asked yesterday in Parliament about his Chancellor Rachel Reeves, he didn't actually state that she was to stay as a minister, so what did that mean? And sitting behind him her face crumbled and there were notable tears. Is she for the chop, we don't know, but what we do know is that she has caused misery in many peoples' lives. Those who had their heating allowance stopped, and those who have lost their jobs, because of the increase in the basic pay and increased National Insurance, which many firms found they could not afford. Hence they had to let some people go.
Her policies have forced the Government into their U turn on the heating allowance and down toning of the disability allowance. Should we saying 'Poor Rachel' she was only doing her job or join the protesting crowds and the back benchers, who want her gone?
Were her tears that of shame because of her policies, or because she was the cause of the Governments' fall from favour (did any one hold them in esteem?) or because she knew she was losing her job. Who knows?
Well one thing we do know, is she won't be short of a penny or two!!
It's not easy being an Member of Parliament even with their generous pay, that they voted for themselves.
Chrisxx
She looked like she's had some sleepless nights and had been crying beforehand, but whatever the reason for her being upset she should not have let it show In Parliament. I was always bought up to believe that whatever problems you are having you do not take them to work, so if she was upset because of something personal she should not have been there if she couldn't have held it together. If she goes it's the end of him, and let's face it, that wouldn't be a bad thing, Labour were always going to make a mess of things. Still, it's not nice to see someone upset.
ReplyDelete