Rachel Reeves is ‘fine' after tearful PMQs, says Keir Starmer
The yield on the 10-year gilt spiked to 4.66 per cent yesterday after prime ministers questions, the biggest jump since Liz Truss's premiership.
Following further comments from Starmer, bond yields fell to 4.52 per cent this morning.
• Read in full: Government borrowing costs drop after PM's defence of chancellor
Sir Keir Starmer said that he and Rachel Reeves were in 'lockstep' over their commitment to fiscal rules and management of the economy.
The prime minister said they were 'absolutely committed to our fiscal rules and the economic stability that is so important for this country, and that is the rock on which we build everything else'.
He added: 'On that issue, Rachel and I are in lockstep, and have been for years. She's great colleague. She's a friend of mine and I'll be working with her for a very long time to come. But like all human beings, we're also personal.
'There are moments that catch us off guard and if you're in front of a camera for large periods of your life, unfortunately, that could be caught on camera in a way, if it had been anybody else at work, it would have not really been noticed.'
The prime minister said the chancellor's tears were 'nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with the ups and downs of this week, or her relationship with anybody in the Labour Party, it's purely personal'.
Sir Keir Starmer said people could be caught 'off guard' by their emotions, but not everyone had to do so in the public eye. He said Reeves was an 'excellent chancellor' and they were both 'absolutely committed to our fiscal rules'.
He said: 'What I would say is — and you'll understand this — in politics, you're on show the whole time, there's no hiding place. But we are humans in the end and sometimes personal things are obviously on our minds and, in this case, that was the situation.'
Sir Keir Starmer said Rachel Reeves was 'fine' following the tearful episode in the Commons.
The prime minister told Virgin Radio: 'She's fine. She's good … I had a long chat with her last night. She's very resilient and strong is Rachel. She's driven through lots of change in the Labour Party. We've had to change the Labour Party, fought an election together.
'I've seen her resilience firsthand. I admire it. She's a really powerful woman, and she's also very widely respected. The sort of messages of concern that have come in over the last 24 hours or so show the great affection and respect in which she is held.
'People are held in respect for a reason, and that's because people know they're very good at what they're doing.'
Thousands more GPs and fewer hospital consultants will be trained in an effort to shift healthcare closer to home, the government is set to announce in a speech this morning.
Two-hundred new 'neighbourhood health centres' will offer scans, outpatient appointments, mental health therapy and a host of services without the need to go to hospital — under proposals to be outlined in the government's ten-year plan for the NHS.
Starmer said the plan would 'fundamentally rewire' the health service, making hospitals a last resort instead of the 'default' for care. He has previously said the NHS must 'reform or die'.
The prime minister is due to speak at a 'health setting' in London at 10.30am.
Wes Streeting, the health secretary, told Times Radio that the chancellor is 'here to stay' despite her emotions at PMQs on Wednesday.
He said: 'I have been in touch with Rachel since PMQs yesterday. Look, we're all human, and sometimes we have things going on in our lives. I think lots of people listening will think of those times where something's been going on personally, and you don't become a different person when you walk through the door at work.'
Streeting added that the prime minister had been 'absolutely unequivocal and full-throated' in his support of Reeves, and added: 'There is absolutely no question as far as the prime minister and indeed the rest of the cabinet are concerned about the chancellor's future. Rachel Reeves as chancellor is here to stay, and she's going to lead our economy from strength to strength.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
33 minutes ago
- Sky News
Unite votes to suspend Angela Rayner over Birmingham bin strike
Labour's largest union donor, Unite, has voted to suspend Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner over her role in the Birmingham bin strike row. Members of the trade union, one of the UK's largest, also "overwhelmingly" voted to "re-examine its relationship" with Labour over the issue. They said Ms Rayner, who is also housing, communities and local government secretary, Birmingham Council's leader, John Cotton, and other Labour councillors had been suspended for "bringing the union into disrepute". There was confusion over Ms Rayner's membership of Unite, with her office having said she was no longer a member and resigned months ago and therefore could not be suspended. But Unite said she was registered as a member. Parliament's latest register of interests had her down as a member in May. The union said an emergency motion was put to members at its policy conference in Brighton on Friday. Unite is one of the Labour Party's largest union donors, donating £414,610 in the first quarter of 2025 - the highest amount in that period by a union, company or individual. The union condemned Birmingham's Labour council and the government for "attacking the bin workers". Mountains of rubbish have been piling up in the city since January after workers first went on strike over changes to their pay, with all-out strike action starting in March. An agreement has still not been made. 2:58 Ms Rayner and the councillors had their membership suspended for "effectively firing and rehiring the workers, who are striking over pay cuts of up to £8,000", the union added. 'Missing in action' General secretary Sharon Graham told Sky News on Saturday morning: "Angela Rayner, who has the power to solve this dispute, has been missing in action, has not been involved, is refusing to come to the table." She had earlier said: "Unite is crystal clear, it will call out bad employers regardless of the colour of their rosette. "Angela Rayner has had every opportunity to intervene and resolve this dispute but has instead backed a rogue council that has peddled lies and smeared its workers fighting huge pay cuts. "The disgraceful actions of the government and a so-called Labour council, is essentially fire and rehire and makes a joke of the Employment Relations Act promises. "People up and down the country are asking whose side is the Labour government on and coming up with the answer not workers." Sir Keir Starmer's spokesman said the government's "priority is and always has been the residents of Birmingham". He said the decision by Unite workers to go on strike had "caused disruption" to the city. "We've worked to clean up streets and remain in close contact with the council [...] as we support its recovery," he added. A total of 800 Unite delegates voted on the motion.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Superinjunctions must never be used to shroud mistakes
British forces in Helmand province SUNDAY TIMES PHOTOGRAPHER RICHARD POHLE I n September 2023 a High Court judge granted the British government its first superinjunction. The order by Mr Justice Knowles prevented not only reporting of a terrible data breach but any reference even to the existence of restrictions. The unprecedented measure, extended several times at the request of Conservative and Labour governments, finally lapsed last week, allowing the public to learn that the details of 19,000 Afghans who had worked with the UK before the Taliban retook power had been released on Facebook, putting them and others at risk of torture or death. The mistake by an official in the UK special forces headquarters led the government to launch a secret refugee scheme that relocated to the UK more than 16,000 people compromised by the leak, at a cost of £850 million. The incompetence of the original act, which involved a spreadsheet containing hidden data being shared via email, should not cloud the argument over whether the superinjunction was reasonable. It would have been worse had the individuals affected suffered reprisals from the Taliban. Ben Wallace, then the Tory defence secretary, was undoubtedly terrified of costing lives when he first requested an injunction in August 2023. But as the injunction became a superinjunction, its very existence became a secret. Its lifespan then stretched into two years. Government officials warned the Commons and Lords Speakers not to allow any parliamentary questions hinting at it. The Labour opposition was not informed; nor was the intelligence and security committee or the defence committee. There came an indeterminate point when the interests of the Afghan breach victims faded and the interests of Whitehall officials grew stronger. Mr Justice Chamberlain, who took over the case and ruled in favour of maintaining the restrictions in November 2023, said the superinjunction was 'likely to give rise to the understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship'. It fell away at midday on Tuesday after a retired deputy chief of defence intelligence, Paul Rimmer, completed a review that concluded the leaked data had not spread as widely as feared and its value to the Taliban, and risk to those named in it, had diminished. Media organisations were allowed to reveal that the resettlement scheme had been hidden even from councils responsible for providing housing at considerable cost to the taxpayer, and that the Ministry of Defence's annual report had been massaged to avoid mentioning that a data incident had been reported to the Information Commissioner's Office. All this is a disgraceful abuse of the original argument over national security and the safety of the Afghans affected. The 2022 breach was a blunder rather than a systemic problem such as the infected blood or Post Office scandal. In those cases elaborate and long-running institutional cover-ups were exposed only thanks to media scrutiny, which eventually forced the government to take responsibility. As Heather Brooke brilliantly argues today, UK officialdom nearly always tends towards obfuscation and non-disclosure. Ministers and civil servants dodge embarrassment wherever they can. We must ensure that the original decision to grant the government a superinjunction is a one-off, not a precedent — and that those who rule us cannot again abuse such a powerful tool.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
SARAH VINE: Why is 16 too young for voting? Ask a brain scientist...
As the mother of two young adults (22 and 20), I am tentatively enjoying some early fruit of my parental labours. My daughter has just graduated with a first from Manchester (shameless mum-brag, guilty as charged), and my son is gainfully employed over the summer holidays in a job that not only gets him out of the house but also keeps him fit and fed (he's a busser in a restaurant). But the news last week that our glorious leader, Sir Keir Starmer, has followed through on his electoral threat to lower the voting age to 16 has rather dampened my mood. It is, quite simply, the height of idiocy. As any Year 11 teacher will tell you, most 16-year-olds aren't fit to tuck their own shirt in, let alone participate in the democratic process.
