Reeves has Starmer’s ‘full backing’, says No 10 after chancellor’s tears in Commons | Crypto Craft

  • Reeves has Starmer’s ‘full backing’, says No 10 after chancellor’s tears in Commons

    From theguardian.com

    Rachel Reeves was in tears at prime minister’s questions on Wednesday as the Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, attacked the government over its U-turn on welfare cuts. The chancellor wiped away a tear after a series of questions from Badenoch, who said Labour MPs had said she was “toast”, and suggested the prime minister had failed to confirm that Reeves would stay in post until the election. Downing Street weighed in immediately behind Reeves, with aides saying she was “going nowhere” and that there would be no reshuffle. A spokesperson for Reeves said: “It’s a personal matter, which – as you would expect ... (full story)

Comment Options
Mitiblotch
Jul 2, 2025 7:21am
Permalink
Quoting Vancarbon
Yes , we wouldn’t their pmt getting in the way of anything now would we ! Do you keep your woman tied in the kitchen, barefoot doing the dishes ? What a chauvinistic comment or are you more of a misogynist ? Women getting above their station , whatever next ! We should teach them how to start wars like the high testosterone alpha males . I’m pretty sure there’d be less wars if women ruled this world . I love women in all shapes and sizes , with all their flaws and misgivings they’re a kinder, gentler species than the male...
Our species needs both the tough and the gentle, the brash and the kind.

Throughout history women also fought wars when they held power. In fact, women can be as petulant with power as men, if not more.
Reply
DwnUndrTrdr
Jul 2, 2025 7:00am
Permalink
She’s been as hard as nails so, possible personal issues aside, could be a possible PR reset. She’s definitely underperformed.
As for women in position of power… you won’t find a more make up wearing insecure catty bone spurred bitch than Donald J Trump.

PS: Apologies to the women out there for slandering you with that pathetic human DJT reference
DwnUndrTrdr
Jul 2, 2025 7:10am
Permalink
Quoting Vancarbon
{quote} What about all the Fannies in the administration? They’re a bunch of pussies who daren’t raise a finger to question the head honcho . That’s the English vernacular Fannie .
Sychophantic sluts the lot of them
newschool
Jul 2, 2025 12:00pm
Permalink
Quoting Mitiblotch
{quote} Our species needs both the tough and the gentle, the brash and the kind. Throughout history women also fought wars when they held power. In fact, women can be as petulant with power as men, if not more.
Wrong. And that is why there is not a single matriarchal society that survived, even barely.
Reply
newschool
Jul 2, 2025 12:04pm
Permalink
Quoting Vancarbon
Yes , we wouldn’t want their pmt getting in the way of anything now would we ! Do you keep your woman tied in the kitchen, barefoot doing the dishes ? What a chauvinistic comment or are you more of a misogynist ? Women getting above their station , whatever next ! We should teach them how to start wars like the high testosterone alpha males . I’m pretty sure there’d be less wars if women ruled this world . I love women in all shapes and sizes , with all their flaws and misgivings they’re a kinder, gentler species than the...
The typical "more women , less wars " means you never been around women much. They will plot and fight over the most trivial differences. They are not designed for leadership. Just like men are not designed to give birth.
Reply
newschool
Jul 2, 2025 12:06pm
Permalink
Quoting Trader#5B91
“Yasss we did it fellow kweenz! We support the wamans unlike that big dumb, meany! He’s insecure not me!! What this world REALLY needs is for women to be the men! Things will definitely be better am I right fellow redditors?!?! Edit: Wow thanks for the gold kind stranger! Gilded! More updoots! Time to fap!” You incels can white knight all you want on a Forex comment section. Sadly for you no woman will read your lame commentary and date you like you guys imagine in your heads.
I am indeed shocked at the level of cuckery in a financial commentary section like this. I was expecting the based, red pilled, high T wall street type of discussion.
Reply
DwnUndrTrdr
Jul 2, 2025 7:46am
Permalink
Hear you both Vancarbon and Mitiblotch.
I remember hearing Reeves on Rest is Politics podcast before the election and thinking she had already painted herself into a corner. Admittedly, she was trying to give the appearance of surety and guidance post Boris and Truss, but she ( labour ) knew the budgetary position.
Trader#5B91
Jul 2, 2025 9:29am
Permalink
“Yasss we did it fellow kweenz! We support the wamans unlike that big dumb, meany! He’s insecure not me!! What this world REALLY needs is for women to be the men! Things will definitely be better am I right fellow redditors?!?! Edit: Wow thanks for the gold kind stranger! Gilded! More updoots! Time to fap!”

You incels can white knight all you want on a Forex comment section. Sadly for you no woman will read your lame commentary and date you like you guys imagine in your heads.
Reply
newschool
Jul 2, 2025 6:32am
Permalink
Poor baby shed a tear. And this is why women should never get near positions of power.
Reply
  • Story Stats

  • Related Stories