The words of opposition politicians are poor. Their main goal is to convince voters that the ruling party is putting a strain on the country. No one really pays attention to it, knowing that it’s just wind.

In government, however, language matters. When the Prime Minister and Chancellor suggest that the country is in dire straits, it has global consequences.

For three months after Labour’s July 4 election victory, Rachel Reeves described Britain as an economic wasteland.

Public services are in a state of collapse, she says, there is a vast black hole in public finances, difficult decisions await us on tax matters – and life will soon get even worse.

It was, she said, the worst economic legacy a British government had ever inherited since the war. Like so many Labor Party claims, this was false.

In 1979, Margaret Thatcher inherited a moribund economy and inflation of 13.4 percent. When David Cameron was elected in 2010, the financial system had collapsed and growth was minus 4.5 percent.

For three months after Labour’s victory in the July 4 election, Rachel Reeves described Britain as an economic wasteland.

It was, she said, the worst economic legacy a British government had ever inherited since the war. Like so many Labor Party statements, this was false

But the relentless narrative that Britain was a “broken” nation remained. Yesterday we saw the effect. Between July and September, growth slowed to just 0.1 percent.

This means we went from being the fastest growing economy in the G7 to the second slowest – and that was before the effects of the Chancellor’s business-crushing Budget.

Business leaders have lined up to attack his short-sighted tax policies, particularly the National Insurance increase, which they say will increase unemployment and depress wages.

The Institute of Directors says the budget measures will “certainly harm investment, jobs and growth”; a Deutsche Bank analysis says they could cut 100,000 jobs.

Meanwhile, five of the nation’s largest lenders have increased the cost of fixed-rate mortgages in anticipation of an economic downturn.

Upon taking office, Reeves said growth was “the central mission” of her government. If so, they’re off to a bad start. After her catastrophic and clumsy initial budget, the Chancellor is in serious danger of plunging Britain into recession.

Rushing to judgment

Sir James Munby, former president of the High Court’s Family Division, said the proposal to give the judge the final say on whether assisted suicide should be performed was “flawed”.

Fears that the assisted dying bill will be rushed through the Commons without paying enough attention to detail have been highlighted by the intervention of one of Britain’s most senior judges.

Sir James Munby, former president of the High Court’s Family Division, said the proposal to give a judge the final say on whether an assisted suicide should take place was “flawed”.

The lack of transparency and the absence of a right of appeal made the projects “deeply unsatisfactory” in terms of judicial involvement.

It was “extraordinary” that the judge was not even required to question the patient, he said.

Ethical questions have already been raised around the bill, but this suggests the legal implications have not been thought through enough.

It also didn’t help that the bill’s architect, Kim Leadbeater, criticized Health Secretary Wes Streeting for publicly opposing it. If he has any fears about its implications, he has every right to express them.

As we have seen in other countries, the legal right to die for the terminally ill may soon be extended to other groups, such as people suffering from depression, the disabled and the frail elderly.

If ever a new piece of legislation required exhaustive debate and careful scrutiny, it is the one that effectively allows the State to sanction the end of a life.