Politics is a typical exposed trade.
For the elected office voluntarily and then, for a lucky something, considering the highest political office, comes with the right, investigation and difficult questions.
And it is undeniably true that the questions for Chancellor Rachel Reeves have become even more difficult after this week. Great analing of government schemes for profit system.
But it is also true that politicians are humans and events that are correctly individually shape their mood and often have very little scope to hide them.
And the Chancellor did not know that very clearly on the Prime Minister’s questions.
Those of us who could see from the press gallery of the House of Commons could see the Chancellor’s cheeks down.
Not for one or two or one or two minutes, but during half an hour.
As Reavs sat crying next to the Sir Kir stormer in the Commons, the Prime Minister was completely unaware of it.
After leaving the chamber, a colleague suggested that Sir Keir wanted to investigate his Chancellor.
The PM expressed the puzzle – he was focusing on answering questions, he did not see his tears.
Another cabinet minister who was sitting close to Reeves, told the BBC that he was equally unaware of his crisis.
“I saw anything was over,” he said.
It was only sitting in front of the Chancellor who saw the long term of crying.
“It was terrible to see,” said one on the conservative frontbench.
As soon as PMQS ended, Reavs took out with his sister Elli, another Labor Minister.
Soon after the session, the Chancellor’s team argued that the “a personal case” was the cause of the spirit of the Chancellor, many cabinet ministers seemed contradictory that it was the only reason.
“He was a dispute with Lindsay [Hoyle, the Speaker] Just before PMQ “, a senior minister claimed.
“He had a line. I think he apologized to him.”
Another minister said that disagreement with the Commons Speaker was the main reason for Chancellor’s crisis.
“He is under mass pressure”, he said. “But there are good women around him.”
A third minister insisted from the BBC: “He is completely fine. I have just gone to his office and talked to him and he is fine. There is nothing to worry about it.”
But a fellow cabinet minister simply said: “I don’t think I have ever seen something like this before.”
An eyewitness told us that the Chancellor came to the chamber unusually early.
The speaker stopped him and appeared angry. At one point it appears that he tried to break the conversation, which is to sit on the front, but he was leaving.
“It was clear that he was doing it too much,” our eyewitness said.
About a minute later he shouted at the words for the effect of “sorry”.
“This was what she had closed,” said our eyewitness, and at that point she left – after a few minutes she was crying.
The speaker’s office has not commented on what happened.
At the human level, anyone who looks at the photographs from the Prime Minister’s questions will be sympathetic, who is also the contributor factor.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch confiscated what to see to frame questions about the future of the Chancellor. Questions that are worth indicating some labor figures are asking themselves privately.
Sir Keir brushed those questions in the Commons, while the Badenoch’s question clearly did not answer whether Reeves would remain his Chancellor until the next election, as he had earlier promised.
Leaders face a dilemma when encountered with such a question: Self and feel that you have diluted your support, repeated it and “the Prime Minister has to return to the Chancellor to return to the Chancellor”.
Her team later clearly supported her and insisted that she was staying in her job.
The Prime Minister still proceeded further on camera – To tell the political thinking of BBC Radio 4 Thinking that his tears were about benefits, U-turns are “wrong”.
Sir Keir said: “This is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. Nothing is done with politics. What has happened this week, nothing has to be done with it. It was a personal matter for him. I am not paying attention to his privacy by talking to you.”
Of course, a mixture of contributing factors of different magnitude can shape the mood of any of us at any time and the professional pressure on the Chancellor is undeniably intense.
Some of us spend the same time in public gaze as their most prominent politicians, where sharp questions would not have followed Reaves, as they did.
Whatever the nuances due to this extraordinary moment in the commons, there is a big picture.
For the Prime Minister and his Chancellor – the revival of the labor and the duality in the heart of electoral success – bringing the show back to the road, estimating direction, confidence and grip should now be for them for the coming months.
Because if they do not manage it, then questions about each of them – even both – will take steps.
