Was Rachel Reeves weeping for the failure of her political project, or for the shame of knowing it was never worth fighting for in the first place?

It now appears (although we'll have to wait for people's memoirs to know for sure) that Rachel Reeves' tears at PMQs yesterday may have been triggered by something that loveable ol' Lindsay Hoyle said to her.  But when it seemed more likely that she was weeping for the political failure of both herself and the Labour government, and in particular for the gutting of the welfare reform legislation, I couldn't help but think it perfectly summed up the tragedy of the modern Labour party.  To try to transform society for the better, and to fail, as many progressive politicians have done in the past, would be something to take immense pride in.  But to be so bereft because you betrayed everything your party once was by trying to make life worse for the most vulnerable people, and were thwarted, speaks to a kind of hollowing out of the British left's soul, which will leave Reeves' generation of Labour ministers with a sense of total emptiness when they reach the end of their careers.  What they fought for wasn't worth having and they didn't get it anyway.  I suppose the flipside is that the flame of Labour values does continue to burn, albeit as no more than a dull flicker, among the wider PLP - but unfortunately the only positive practical effect of electing a Labour majority to parliament is that it might sometimes be able to resist the right-wing excesses of the very Labour government that it pointlessly sustains in office.

There was an extraordinary quote on Tuesday from an anonymous Labour loyalist, attacking the welfare rebels: "What did they think the job was? They all think they're JFK because they delivered some leaflets while Morgan McSweeney won them the election."  If the job description of Labour MPs has been revised from creating a fairer society to total unthinking loyalty to the unelected Morgan McSweeney, then I think it's high time this modern day JFK was subjected to some proper public accountability, because I'm not sure I've ever even heard the sound of his voice.  I presume he still has a southern Irish accent, which would be rather jarring given what he's come to represent.  On the face of it, he strikes me as a total political dud, for three reasons -

* He forced Labour to abandon all of its values on the premise that doing so would increase the party's popularity, but ended up with roughly the same share of the vote that Jeremy Corbyn took in 2019, and a significantly lower share of the vote than Corbyn took in 2017.

* His strategic advice has led to the Starmer government's popularity plummetting further and faster than any other newly elected government in British history.

* He purged the PLP as best he could of all free thinkers and replaced them with drones to ensure that his right-wing programme would face no substantive resistance, and yet the Starmer administration with its landslide majority has still ended up functioning like a minority government that cannot carry its business without negotiations and massive concessions.

Now that really is political failure.  To misquote Senator Lloyd Bentson: "Morgan, you're no Jack Kennedy...although let's hear what your voice sounds like just to be sure."