Rachel Reeves is a scapegoat but I will not shed a tear for the Iron Chancellor - Kwasi Kwarteng

Yesterday's scenes were unprecedented. A Chancellor of the Exchequer actually shedding tears in the House of Commons itself has rarely, if ever, been seen before.

Of course, the background needs some explanation. There is always a context which must be understood fully to appreciate the significance of events.

The truth is that when Rachel Reeves shed a tear yesterday, she felt isolated and vulnerable. The pressure is all too much for her. I have been there. It can be a lonely place, especially since a Chancellor, however powerful in theory, is only ever there because the Prime Minister’s will.

In Reeves’s case, the situation looks weak. Things could be even worse. Her welfare bill has been effectively shredded. The Treasury had told the world only last week that the government would go ahead with the bill. Rebels, they suggested, would be ignored. "Full steam ahead!" was the implied message from no 11.

Then reality reasserted itself. The rebels, numbering about 120, were simply too vocal and powerful to be contained. The government then made a mistake by giving concessions too early. They threw the towel in on Thursday when the vote itself was this Tuesday.

That was an error because it only meant that the rebels could squeeze more concessions over the weekend, thereby totally gutting the bill.

The proposed savings won't be made, meaning that Rachel will now have to find an additional £5bn in the budget this autumn.

This will result in almost inevitable tax rises. Higher taxes will, as sure as night follows day, lead to lower economic growth.

The parliamentary battle which the government has just lost was bruising and bitter. It has led to Reeves effectively being demonised by a large section of the parliamentary Labour Party.

To the left of the party, Reeves has always been a suspected rightist. Worse, they even call her, that most hated of terms, a “Blairite”. Today, she is the scapegoat and lightning rod for the government.

The rebels, the left-wing zealots who see absolutely no need to curb spending, are openly disdainful and have constantly undermined her authority.

Her own Cabinet colleagues like Angela Rayner and Liz Kendal are openly briefing against her. We read that it was Rayner herself who forced Downing Street to give in to the rebels. She was the one who had blown a sizeable hole in the budget, applying more pressure on Reeves.

Despised by many of her own backbenchers, briefed against by cabinet colleagues, Reeves is now wholly dependent on a Prime Minister who pointedly refused to back her at PMQs on Wednesday.

I think the tears reflected that weakness. My sympathy only extends so far, however. Nobody forced her to take the job. She was proud to describe herself in politically correct terms as "the first female Chancellor". She now has to wear the office with dignity.

Tears, I am afraid, are not the hallmark of the Iron Chancellor she set out to be. She seems stressed and out of her depth. Her fear must surely be now that MPs will exploit her weakness and push her around even more. The Prime Minister will ruthlessly sack her if, in desperation, he thinks it will save his own skin which, of course, it will not.