The feuding Gallagher brothers have set aside their differences to reunite Oasis following a 15-year hiatus. But while they may be hoping to cash in with their tour of the UK and Ireland next year, pundits are debating whether their music still hits the right note in today's Britain.

A cultural force in the 1990s and early 2000s, the Manchester band divided opinion as their popularity soared. Yet Oasis became defining voices of a generation with their early work, which was driven by "evocation of a desire for escape" and a search for "something better",  said Alexis Petridis in The Guardian.

'Beautiful and terrible all at once'
From a performance perspective, the Oasis reunion could "go either way", said Petridis. Their live act has fluctuated wildly over the years, but the tour's "commercial success is obviously assured" given the numbers of "very faithful" Oasis fans who will turn out.

The reunion will be "beautiful and terrible all at once", said Brendan O'Neill at Spiked – not only for the music but because "Britain really needs a shot of Gallagher right now". Perhaps, said Ben Sixsmith at The Critic, and it would be easy to be "too cynical" about the reunion tour. But there is something "odd" about the culture of being "nostalgic about the 1990s". The "optimistic" and "aspirational" songs from the band's first two albums may sound a "bit hollow in 2025”. In these testing social and economic times, it is "difficult not to look back in anger if you're looking forward with so much consternation".

'Sky-high prices'
As long as Liam and Noel Gallagher both "remained compos mentis", said Dylan Jones in the London Evening Standard, there was "always the possibility" of an Oasis reunion. And the band's promoters "kept putting moolah on the mahogany" until they got "their way". 

Audiences are expected to pay "presumably sky-high ticket prices" to see the band's "lumpen, meat 'n' potatoes rock", said Alexander Larman in The Spectator. There is unlikely to a new album for the tour either. Instead, the Gallaghers will just need to put their "differences behind them" and get on with "simply playing the hits" to amass a fortune "too tempting to pass up".

Can a bacon sandwich raise the risk of diabetes? That's the question being asked after a study of two million people found that eating a small amount of processed meat led to a significantly increased chance of contracting the disease.

The findings, outlined in a report in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, mark the latest development in the "ever-evolving and confusing world of nutrition science", said New Scientist. 

What are the findings?
The new study was based on people from 20 different countries and linked diabetes to red and processed meats including steak, bacon and sausages.

The researchers, from the University of Cambridge, found that for every 50 grams of processed meat eaten per day, the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the next ten years rose by 15% on average. An extra 100g of unprocessed red meat per day was linked to a 10% higher risk.

What are the question marks?
Although the research "has been done well", said the BBC, the findings are "nuanced" and "should not cause fear or panic".

The "inevitable limitation" of the research is that it "cannot prove" meat causes diabetes, because it is "impossible to fully discount" other possible risk factors, such as "other foods people in the study ate" and "the lifestyle they led".

What do health agencies say about meat?
The International Agency for Research on Cancer puts processed meat in the same category of risk as tobacco smoking and asbestos. The NHS advises people to consume no more than 70g (cooked weight) of red or processed meat a day because experts believe eating too much can cause bowel cancer.

Another recent study found that those who avoid meat "seem to be in better health" in general, said The Telegraph. Vegetarians and vegans "appear less likely to develop cardiovascular disease, cancer or die early" and also "tend to have better blood pressure, blood sugar and BMI readings".

Experts say people considering reducing their meat intake should make sure they still have plenty of iron, vitamin B12 and protein in their diet.

"On paper, 'Only Murders in the Building' is everything that's wrong with contemporary TV comedy," said Rachel Aroesti in The Guardian. Forgoing "outright hilarity" for an "excessively starry" cast, "high-concept plotting" and "emotional sincerity", the show is a product of the streaming era.

"And yet – plot twist! – 'Only Murders in the Building' is screamingly funny. In fact, it's the funniest thing on TV at the moment."

The show follows a trio of true crime podcasters and neighbours – Charles (Steve Martin), Oliver (Martin Short) and Mabel (Selena Gomez) – who solve mysteries in their swanky New York apartment complex. Season four delves into the murder of Charles' stunt double, Sazz, who was shot through the window of his apartment at the end of season three.

Stars playing themselves can be "hit and miss", said Ed Power in The Telegraph, but the new cast members are a "hoot" and the original trio "effortlessly reprise the screwball energy" of the preceding seasons. There "isn't nearly enough" of Meryl Streep, though, who returns to the show as Oliver's blossoming love interest.

Still, the "charm" of "Only Murders in the Building" goes way beyond its dazzling cast and "steady stream of one-liners". At the heart of the show is a "compelling whodunnit" filled with twists that lay the groundwork for a "killer season". It's "ingeniously" plotted, agreed Ben Dowell in The Times, and the "chemistry" between the trio is still "high wattage". 

Season four "isn't perfect", said Rachel Aroesti in The Guardian, but it's certainly close. The show "remains an extremely rare example of a comedy-drama that does both equally, and incredibly, well".

"Only Murders in the Building", season four is streaming on Disney+

Sanctimonious, mendacious and lacking any vision
Daily Mail leader article
After "concealing his true socialist intentions", Keir Starmer has "finally come clean", says the Daily Mail. It was "clear from his near-apocalyptic address" from the No. 10 rose garden who will "bear the brunt" of October's budget – the "already squeezed denizens of Middle England". His speech was "sanctimonious, mendacious, and lacking any vision for mending Britain". The Labour leader "hasn't yet been in power ten weeks" and "already he's junked half his manifesto".

Why disastrous trips are the most memorable
Hugo Rifkind for The Times
There are "plenty of contenders" for my worst holiday, writes Hugo Rifkind, yet "I do not remember any" with "misery" because "horrible as they may have been", I "would not be me without them". That "makes me wonder" if a bad trip is "actually a success". Think of "the calm, serene holiday" when "you do nothing" except "eat, drink and bob in a pool" and then think of "the worst holiday disaster you can imagine". Ten years on, "which one will you remember better"?

The disappointing Alzheimer's decision is part of a bigger problem
John Hardy for the FT
"We are on the cusp of a new era in Alzheimer’s treatment," writes John Hardy, vice-president of Alzheimer’s Research UK. But the decision by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence "not to make this treatment available on the NHS" shows how far there still is to go. "Governments, academic institutions, charities, pharmaceutical companies and society as a whole" must work together to make sure "effective new treatments reach everyone who could benefit".