Best Of

Are we going to have to wait until October or November every year of this parliament wondering how she's going to make our shit sandwich even bigger?

The uncertainty it drives into the economy and investment for months on end is criminal. And hurts UK Plc.

This is a key point - investment has dried up. To be fair to Reeves it isn't just her, it dried up before Labour took over. And its in every industry. It's been fascinating watching north sea industry leaders aghast at "drill baby drill" - that is the opposite of what they want. Planned, deliverable, profitable investment over a long period of time, with stable politics giving a platform they trust putting money into.

This is crazy. The UK economy has stalled completely, and the never ending shit show cycle makes it worse.

You're an investor. The UK has had 6 Prime Ministers and 8 Chancellors in 10 years. With wild policy swings in that time. Sometimes week to week. Why would you invest here? We need stability. Leaving Reeves in place brings stability to the ver changing cycle but in this case it is stability as the ship sinks. She needs to go.

But who would be better?

As far as I understand it, the internal pressure in Labour is that she isn't borrowing and spending enough.

It's quite quite mad.

There are too many Labour politicians who have been net recipients of government taxation/spending all their lives.

And too many Labour politicians who know too many people who have been net recipients of government taxation/spending all their lives.

The mindset develops that being a net recipient of government/spending all your life is 'normal' and that the net contributors are the unimportant outliers.

Are we going to have to wait until October or November every year of this parliament wondering how she's going to make our shit sandwich even bigger?

The uncertainty it drives into the economy and investment for months on end is criminal. And hurts UK Plc.

This is a key point - investment has dried up. To be fair to Reeves it isn't just her, it dried up before Labour took over. And its in every industry. It's been fascinating watching north sea industry leaders aghast at "drill baby drill" - that is the opposite of what they want. Planned, deliverable, profitable investment over a long period of time, with stable politics giving a platform they trust putting money into.

This is crazy. The UK economy has stalled completely, and the never ending shit show cycle makes it worse.

You're an investor. The UK has had 6 Prime Ministers and 8 Chancellors in 10 years. With wild policy swings in that time. Sometimes week to week. Why would you invest here? We need stability. Leaving Reeves in place brings stability to the ver changing cycle but in this case it is stability as the ship sinks. She needs to go.

But who would be better?

As far as I understand it, the internal pressure in Labour is that she isn't borrowing and spending enough.

It's quite quite mad.

An anecdatum: just had a conversation with a colleague, who is quite stressed about LTR changes. She’s Malaysian, but has lived in the UK all her adult life – i.e. ten years or so. She has been asked in the past why she doesn’t just get British citizenship – she never has done yet because she would need to forfeit her Malaysian citizenship in order to do so. She hasn’t done this in the past because she’s had no need, but she’d be nervous about doing so in the future in the case of a Reform government because if Reform are capable of cancelling ILR she reasons they’d be capable of rejecting the citizenship of those who had moved here – which would, because she’d have had to turn down her Malaysian citizenship, render her stateless.
Quite aside from the sympathy I feel for her as a person, I can’t imagine this is the sort of outcome Reform are trying to achieve. (Aside from a slight accent and her Chinese features, you wouldn’t think she was anything but British – culturally she is clearly entirely non-alien. In fact, the most culturally incongruous thing about her is she has a quote from a psalm slotted into her phone.)

Christ, the Mail have got the paracetemol/autism thing on their front page. I'm sure their article will get round to the medical evidence but the "just asking questions" thing is just so hideously irresponsible.

Expect a big increase in stomach ulcers as people switch to ibuprofen.

This massive Swedish study found no connection.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2817406

Keep taking the pills.

That's not *quite* true; it found a very minor correlation that is not statistically significant, and may simply be chance. The children of mothers who took acetimponephien were about 0.2 percentage points more likely to be autistic than those who didn't (albeit once you controlled for siblings, even that minor correlation largely disappeared.)

It *might* be the case that there's a tiny increased risk of autism from taking paracetamol, but it certainly doesn't *cause* autism.

Of course, it's also entirely possible that illness/pain is correlated with autism, and people who are sick/in pain are more likely to take paracetamol.

I think there is no statistically significant risk of taking paracetamol in pregnancy. It is important not to be ambiguous about stating this.

There is a definite risk both to mother and child of not treating fevers in pregnancy and childhood. Leaving children and mothers to be to suffer without pain relief is just cruel.