David Anderson, the government’s former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, told peers that he did not object to terrorism laws being involved in relation to any of the three groups covered by the proscription order being debated (Palestine Action, Maniacs Murder Cult [MMC] and the Russian Imperial Movement).

But he said that this move would have serious consequences. He explained:

The consequences of designation for individuals misguided enough to approve, for example, of Palestine Action are rather more draconian than the explanatory memorandum to this order suggests.

That document states: “It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to or invite support for a proscribed organisation. It is a criminal offence to arrange a meeting to support a proscribed organisation.”

That is an accurate summary of section 11, section 12(1) and section 12(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000. If you are a member or a promoter of a proscribed organisation, you can face up to 14 years in prison.

But since the Counter-terrorism and Border Security act 2019 introduced section 12(1)(a) to the Terrorism Act 2000, you could also be looking at up to 14 years if you “express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation”, without even needing an intention that your listener or listeners should agree. Being reckless about that suffices.

So by bringing Palestine Action, for example, within the ambit of the terrorism laws anyone who is young and foolish enough to say that their heart is in the right place, or that the government should listen to them, is committing a very serious offence for which they could be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned as a terrorist.

It’s not their right to protest that is the issue here. It’s the right of freedom of speech.

Anderson said the minister should tell peers whether this point was considered by the government before it decided to ban Palestine Action.

The Labour peer Peter Hain, who was a leading anti-apartheid campaigner in the UK and who led the direct action protests that disrupted South African rugby and cricket tours in 1969 and 1970, told peers that he was “deeply ashamed” that his party was banning Palestine Action.

If he was doing that today, he would be “stigmatised as a terrorist, rather than vilified, as indeed I then was”, he said. He went on:

That militant action could have been blocked by this motion [the order banning Palestine Action] as could other anti-apartheid activity, including militant protests to stop Barclays Bank recruiting new students on university campuses, eventually forcing Barclays to withdraw from apartheid South Africa.

Remember also that Nelson Mandela was labelled a “terrorist” by the apartheid government, by British prime minister Maragret Thatcher, by the United States and other Western governments during much of the Cold War.

Mandela even remained on the US terrorism watchlist until 2008, many years after becoming South Africa’s first democratically elected president and receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

After his African National Congress had been banned, Nelson Mandela was convicted for sabotage and conspiracy to overthrow the apartheid government when he backed armed struggle despite strongly opposing the very essence of terrorism: namely violent and indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians.

Nevertheless, he became a global icon and in 1996 President Mandela addressed both Houses of this Parliament in Westminster Hall.

Hain said the suffragettes would have been banned under the same logic,

The suffragettes too have gained iconic status, treated as heroines today. Yet they could have been suppressed under this proscription. They used violence against property in a strategic manner to demand voting rights for women as part of civil disobedience protests when their peaceful protests seemed futile.

They intended to highlight the injustice of denying women the vote and to provoke a reaction that kept the issue in the public eye. Like Nelson Mandela, they were vilified at the time, including in strident denunciations by members of this house …

They even hid small homemade bombs inside mailboxes and attempted to bomb Westminster Abbey and Prime Minister David Lloyd George’s uncompleted house.

Frankly Palestine Action members spraying paint on military aircraft at Brize Norton seems positively moderate by comparison. And those alleged to have done this are being prosecuted for criminal damage – as indeed they should be.

Hain said that “real terrorists” were groups like al-Qaida and Islamic State, who have killed thousands of people.

He ended:

This government is treating Palestine Action as equivalent to Islamic State or al-Qaida, which is intellectually bankrupt, politically unprincipled and morally wrong. Frankly I am deeply ashamed. And that is why I support this regret amendment.

Jenny Jones, the Green party peer, has tabled a motion to regret as an amendment to the Palestine Action order. It would add these words to the motion passing the order.

but this house regrets that the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation (1) undermines civil liberties, including civil disobedience, (2) constitutes a misuse of anti-terrorism legislation, given that offences such as property damage can be dealt with under other criminal law, (3) suppresses dissent against the United Kingdom’s policy on Israel, and (4) criminalises support for a protest group, thereby creating a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

As well as banning Palestine Action, the order also bans Maniacs Murder Cult (MMC) and the Russian Imperial Movement, two white supremacist groups.

She told peers that Palestine Action were not in the same category as this group.

She said that the current definition of terrorism includes property damage in order to cover actions which might not be violent in themselves, but which can, in a modern society, “have a devastating impact”.

But this did not apply to what Palestine Action do, Jones said. She said their activities did not have the potential to cause “a devastating impact”, and their activities have not involved “a pattern for serious violence”, she said.

She went on:

If you want Palestine Action to disappear, then stop sending arms to Israel and giving military support to a foreign government engaged in ethnic cleansing.

There are many things Palestine Action has done I don’t agree with, but spraying paint on refuelling planes that campaigners believe are used to help the ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not terrorism. It’s criminal damage, which we already have laws for.

Yesterday MPs voted to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.

The order proscribing the group has to be passed by the House of Lords too, and in the Lords David Hanson, a Home Office minister, has just opened the debate on this.

He stressed that the government was not banning “the legitimate campaign for Palestinian rights and statehood which has existed in our country and indeed across both Houses of Parliament for more than five decades”. And it was not banning protests in support of Palestine, he said.

He said the government defended the right of people to engage in peaceful protest. But that did not involve giving this group “a blank cheque for this particular group to seriously damage property or subject members of the public to fear and violence”.

He went on:

Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of property damage, featuring attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the threshold from direct criminal action into terrorism,

Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene of attacks for their role in coordinated attacks. Members of the organisation have been charged with serious offences, including violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon.

Despite some of the rhetoric to the contrary, the group’s own materials have stated that the organisation is not non violent. This is echoed in the actions of its members who have committed atrocious attacks.

On the basis of all the evidence, the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, and the security minister, Dan Jarvis, have concluded the group should be proscribed, he said.

Here is the text of Wes Streeting’s statement to MPs that he delivered earlier about the government’s 10-year plan for health in England.

And here are some of the points that came up during the exchanges.

• Streeting said that the government expected to open around 40 to 50 new neighbourhood health centres by the end of this parliament, and up to 300 over the next 10 years. In response to a question about who would run them, he replied:

They will be NHS providers and we’ll be doing a combination of new builds and also refurbishing and rejuvenating underutilised existing estate both in the NHS and in the public sector, and therefore the cost of each neighbourhood health centre will vary from the low millions to around £20m depending on whether it’s an upgrade, a refurb, an expansion, or indeed a new build.

• He said that the government would be using private finance for some capital projects, particularly in neighbourhood health. But it would do this “with care and caution, and keeping in mind the mistakes that were made by the private finance initiative”.

• He said a new workforce plan would be published in the autumn.

• Edward Argar, the shadow health secretary, questioned how the measures would be implemented, but said the plan “by and large does say the right things”. In response, Streeting thanked Argar for his constructive approach and said Argar was “rather more serious and sensible than the display we saw from the opposition yesterday”.

The Labour peer David Lipsey has been found dead after swimming in the River Wye, PA Media reports.

Dyfed Powys Police confirmed the body of a man pulled from the River Wye in Glasbury on July 1 is that of Lord Lipsey, PA says. Lord Lipsey, who previously worked as a journalist and Downing Street adviser under then prime minister Jim Callaghan, entered the Lords in 1999.

A police spokesperson said:

Dyfed-Powys Police received a report concerning the safety of a man who was last seen swimming in the River Wye, Glasbury. Following a multi-agency search on July 1, sadly, we can confirm the body of Lord David Lipsey was recovered. His next of kin have been informed and our thoughts are with them at this difficult time. They have asked for their privacy to be respected.

Helena Horton is a Guardian environment correspondent.

Some farms will be taken entirely out of food production under plans to make space for nature, the environment secretary has said.

Speaking at the Groundswell farming festival in Hertfordshire, Steve Reed said a revamp of the post Brexit farming subsidies and a new land use plan will be aimed at increasing food production in the most productive areas and decreasing or completely removing it in the least productive. In reality, this means many upland farmers may be incentivised to stop farming.

He said his land use framework “envisions taking some of the least productive land out of food production, but supporting the more productive land to increase production.”

Reed added this is so “you maintain outputs, or even increase outputs while increasing the space for nature.”

He went on:

We have a limited amount of land in this country for the many demands we we make of it, for food production, for housing, for energy and for nature, and we need to make sure that we are using them optimally for all of those outcomes.

He added that these communities will be supported through the transition.

I grew up in the 80s, and the Thatcher government at the time destroyed the industry that my entire family worked in, and nothing was put in place. So those communities were destroyed, and like for my whole life, one of the reasons I got involved in politics was to make sure that can’t happen again.

Richard Adams is the Guardian’s education editor.

Sir Martyn Oliver, the head of Ofsted, has suggested that house prices in England could be affected by the government’s changes to school inspection grading that do away with ratings such as “outstanding”.

During a session at an education festival in Berkshire, Oliver related how house prices near where he lived “shot up” by £15,000 in a week after a nearby school was graded outstanding, and said: “Parents obviously put a value on it.”

Oliver said the removal of single-term grades such as outstanding, good or inadequate by the government posed a “burning question” for property websites such as Rightmove, which prominently include local school grades in their listings.

Oliver said:

We’re about to take that away and change it to something else that for more than three decades people were used to. I mean, here’s the burning question, what’s Rightmove going to do? It’s a serious point.

Ofsted has been criticised for overcomplicating its reforms to school gradings - a Labour manifesto commitment at the last election that followed the suicide of headteacher Ruth Perry following a traumatic Ofsted inspection that downgraded her school from outstanding to inadequate. At Perry’s inquest, the court heard of her fears that the grade would hurt local house prices and anger parents.

Asked by John Dickens, the editor of Schools Week, what impact the new “report card” grades would have on house prices, Oliver replied:

I don’t know but I do know that where I live ... we’ve got two special measures schools right where I live, And the house prices shot up, they were both in special measures, both went outstanding, and the house prices went up £15,000 in a week. It does make a difference.... Parents obviously put a value on it.

Here is our updated story by Peter Walker and Denis Campbell about the launch of the 10-year health plan for England.

Jeremy Corbyn has hinted he could launch a political party alongside other leftwing independent MPs in an attempt to offer “an alternative” to Labour, before the next general election, Aletha Adu reports.

Last year, in a Q&A at the CBI conference, Rachel Reeves said that after the 2024 budget she would was “not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes”. That is sometimes quoted as Reeves rolling out any further tax rises, but in fact anyone who heard the full Q&A will have understood that she was ruling out was future tax rises on the scale of what was in that budget. She also told the CBI: “We won’t have to do a budget like this ever again.”

The budget raised taxes by £25bn in 2025-26, and by almost £42bn by 2029-30.

Until recently, ministers have been happy to repeat that version of the Reeves promise – to say that the 2024 budget was a one-off, and that the government will never come up with tax rises that big ever again.

But this morning, when Gary Gibbon from Channel 4 News asked Keir Starmer if he was still willing to rule out tax rises “anything like” those in the 2024 budget, Starmer did not quite give that pledge. (See 11.20am.) Starmer replied:

First of all, let me say what every prime minister or chancellor says anytime they’re asked about a future budget – it’s always the same, thisn’t a Labour answer or Conservative answer – no prime minister or chancellor is going to write a budget in advance.

But we did really tough stuff in that budget last year. We made sure we stabilised the economy, and we took big decisions early on …

So I say again today, we’ve done a lot of the heavy lifting, we’ve done a lot of the hard yards. The result of that, we’re turning our economy around, fastest growth in the G7 in the first quarter of this year, business confidence at a nine-year high and record investment.

In the end, that’s what drives growth. That’s what we were saying a year ago, the other side of the election. And that’s what I’ll say it again here today.

In her interview with broadcasters Rachel Reeves was more explict than she has been before in hinting that taxes are likely to go up in the budget in the autumn.

Asked if taxes would have to got up as a result of the multiple concessions on the welfare bill, which have meant that it will no longer save £5bn a year by the end of this parliament, as originally planned, Reeves replied:

I’m not going to speculate because the budget will be in the autumn … We’ll get a new forecast and we’ll do the budget later this year.

But of course there is a cost to the welfare changes that parliament voted through this week and that will be reflected in the budget.

Reeves is expected to raise taxes because alternative means of filling the funding gap don’t seem to be available. She is not expected to cut spending, because she has just published a spending review, and the government’s fiscal rules rule out further borrowing.

Stressing her commitment to those rules, Reeves said.

I’m also very, very clear that that stability that we’ve been able to return to the economy which has enabled the Bank of England to cut interests rates four times is only possible because of the fiscal discipline which is underpinned by the fiscal rules.

And we’ll be sticking to those because they’re absolutely vital for the living standards of working people and also the costs that businesses face.

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has recorded an interview for broadcasters. The main aim of it seems to have been to show that yesterday was just a blip, and that she is back to normal (which in her case means dodging questions about whether taxes will go up in the budget). She also made a point of smiling quite a lot. She might have been overdoing the grinning, but she came across as a minister composed and reasonably confident about her standing, which is not how she appeared yesterday.

Here, from PA Media, are the key lines.

• Reeves declined to say why she was in tears at PMQs yesterday. Asked about this, she said:

Clearly I was upset yesterday and everyone could see that. It was a personal issue and I’m not going to go into the details of that.

My job as chancellor at 12 o’clock on a Wednesday is to be at PMQs next to the prime minister, supporting the government and that’s what I tried to do.

I guess the thing that maybe is a bit different between my job and many of your viewers’ is that when I’m having a tough day it’s on the telly and most people don’t have to deal with that.

• She insisted she was up to the job of being chancellor. Asked about this, she said:

I totally am. This is the job that I’ve always wanted to do.

I’m proud of what I’ve delivered as chancellor. Look, I think all of your viewers have had tough days … I happen to be on camera when I have a tough day.

• She said she was not crying as a result of the conversation she had with Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, earlier. He is said to have reprimanded her for how she handled Treasury questions the previous day. Asked if he was to blame for her crying, she replied:

No, it was a personal issue, and I’m not going into the details of that.

It wouldn’t be right or fair. People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday. today’s a new day and I’m just cracking on with the job.

• She said that she and Keir Starmer were “a team” – but would not say if she thought he should have backed her more fully at PMQs. In response to a question from Kemi Badenoch, Starmer declined to say Reeves would still be chancellor at the time of the next election – although he has confirmed that subsequently. Asked if she was surprised Starmer did not back her more strongly in the Commons, Reeves replied:

I think that people can see that Keir and me are a team.

We fought the election together, we changed the Labour party together so that we could be in the position to return to power and over the past year we’ve worked in lockstep together whether that is on the budget, on the spending review or indeed on our measures to improve public services like the 10-year plan for the NHS.

• She said she was “proud” of her record as chancellor.

My job as chancellor is to return the stability to the economy, bring investment into Britain, but most importantly to improve the lives of ordinary working people, which is why I’m so pleased that in this first year interest rates have come down four times, saving money for people with mortgages, I’ve been the chancellor who’s increased the national living wage… so I’m proud of what we’ve done this last year.

But is there more to do as a government? Absolutely there is, and I’m going to get on with that job.

Rachel Reeves has said “clearly I was upset” when asked about being tearful during PMQs yesterday, PA Media reports. But it was her job to be at PMQs “supporting the government and that’s what I tried to do”, she said.

Reeves also appeared to reject suggestions that her tears were related to a conversation with Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle or another member of government.

Asked whether this was the case, the chancellor told broadcasters:

No, it was a personal issue, and I’m not going into the details of that. It wouldn’t be right or fair. People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday. Today’s a new day and I’m just cracking on with the job.

My job as chancellor is to return the stability to the economy, bring investment into Britain, but most importantly to improve the lives of ordinary working people, which is why I’m so pleased that in this first year interest rates have come down four times, saving money for people with mortgages, I’ve been the chancellor who’s increased the national living wage... so I’m proud of what we’ve done this last year.

But is there more to do as a government? Absolutely there is, and I’m going to get on with that job.

In the Commons Wes Streeting, the health secretary, is making his statement about the health plan for England now.

The Department of Health and Social Care has now published the plan on its website.

Q: What advice would you give yourself if could go back to this time last year? And, given that President Macron will be addressing parliament when he comes to the UK next week, would you like to see President Trump address parliament.

On the Macron visit, Starmer says the UK-France relationship is now in a “very strong place). He says the relationship with the US is very strong too. He does not address the point about Trump addressing parliament, but he says the details of Trump’s visit will be announced nearer the time.

On lessons, he says what is important is to remember who is in your “mind’s eye” when taking decisons.

Q: Do you worry that the pressure is becoming too much for the chancellor?

No, says Starmer. He says he and Reeves “work in lockstep”.

Q: [From Gary Gibbon from Channel 4 News] The chancellor has said you will not raise taxes again on the scale that happened last year. Can you repeat that today. Experts say you can’t.

Starmer says he will not announce budget decisions now.

But he says the decisions they took last year were “heavy lifting” to repair the finances. As a result of those measures, they turned the economy around, he says.

UPDATE: See 1.53pm for the full quote.

Q: Why is the chancellor here? Is she here to calm the markets?

Starmer says Reeves is here because she is the chancellor, and because they can only deliver the NHS plan because of her decisions.

Starmer confirms that there are three principles behind the 10-year plan.

First, it will make the NHS focus much more on prevention, so it prevents people getting ill in the first place.

That means a stronger focus on vaccination, on screening, early diagnosis, things like innovative weight loss services, which can be available in pharmacies, working with major food businesses to make their products healthier, better mental health support, particularly for our young people, and starting with children aged 16, we will raise the first entirely smoke free generation.

Second, the NHS will shift from being a hospital-dominated service to being a “community, neighbourhood health service”.

So just imagine it - nurses, doctors, pharmacists, dentists, carers, health visitors, all under one roof, also alongside them services like debt advice, employment support, smoking cessation, preventative services, which we know are so crucial for a healthy life. That is an exciting process.

The idea that the future of healthcare is no longer defined by top-down citadels of the central state, but it instead in your home, in your community, in your hands – that is an inspiring vision of change.

And, third, the NHS will become more digital, he says.

He invites people to get their phones out – not something he normally wants them to do in a speech, he says. And then he invites them to consider all the apps they have on their phone.

He goes on:

Entire industries have reorganised around apps. Retail knows the power of it, transport, finance, you name it, shopping. Why can’t we do that with health?

Why can’t we have that app on your phone? Why not the NHS app on your phone, making use of the same dynamic force to cut waiting lists at your hospital, to make it easier to book an appointment with your GP to give you more control over our health.

There is no good reason why we can’t, and so I’m announcing today as part of this plan that we can and we will transform the NHS app so it becomes an indispensable part of life for everyone.

It will become, as technology develops, like having a doctor in your pocket, providing you with 24 hours advice, seven days a week, an NHS that really is always there when you need it.

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is smiling a lot as she says the plan will get the NHS “back on its feet”.

And she says she has only been able to invest in public services by sticking to her fiscal rules.

She does not refer to what happened in the Commons yesterday at PMQs.

Streeting says he has to go to the Commons to make a statement to MPs.

But first he introduces Rachel Reeves, saying that she has put an extra £29bn into the NHS.

It is thanks to her leadership that we’ve seen interest rates in our country fall four times. It’s thanks to her leadership that we see wages finally rising faster than the cost of living. And it’s thanks to her leadership we have the fastest growing economy in the G7.

Nigel Farage has said that he would like to appoint ministers to a Reform UK cabinet who weren’t MPs or peers.

In a phone-in with LBC, he said that it was was “nonsense” that ministers “must all be politicians in the House of Commons” and he suggested the UK should follow the example of countries like the US, where members of the government do not have to be members of the legislature.

Farage said:

I really mean this, I do think that you’ve got to think a little bit more about running the public finances as if you’re running a business.

Asked if there were any names he was considering, he declined to say, but added:

I’m amazed by the conversations we’re having already. Some of them are very well-known people.

In the democratic era in Britain it has been conventional for most ministerial jobs, particularly cabinet ones, to be held by MPs, who are accountable to other elected members in the Commons. All governments also need some ministers who are in the House of Lords, and most prime ministers bring in a handful of outsiders by giving them peerages.

But Farage is suggesting having a cabinet with ministers who do not sit in either the Commons or the Lords. In theory this is allowed, and there are some precedents for non-parliamentarians being government ministers (some are set in the appendix to this Constitution Unit report on the ‘outsiders’ being ministers), but it would amount to a huge constitutional change.

In a recent Sunday Times interview, Farage claimed his plan would lead to ministers being more accountable to parliament, not less. Citing the US example, he said:

The point about America is that you can have a senior cabinet position and you are held to account by a committee system that takes place on Capitol Hill and that is the equivalent of being in a court of law. That’s accountability. Standing up in the House of Commons and telling a pack of lies, frankly, is not accountability.

It’s almost impossible for cabinet ministers to be good MPs anyway, because how could they be? What was interesting was Gordon Brown. Digby Jones is a character that I like very much and Brown made Digby business minister and chucked him in the House of Lords.

But there is no evidence that US cabinet ministers are more honest when they face questions in congress than UK ministers are when they are questioned by MPs or peers. Under the ministerial code, lying to parliament is a sacking offence.

Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has said that, under his 10-year plan for the NHS, he wants to extend access to weight-loss drugs.

Speaking on LBC this morning, he said:

Weight-loss jabs are the talk of the House of Commons, half my colleagues are on them and are judging the rest of us saying ‘you lot should be on them’.

And the thing is, if you can afford these weight loss jabs, which can be over £200 a month, well that’s all right for you.

But most people in this country haven’t got spared two and a half grand a year and often the people who have the worst and most challenging obesity also have the lowest income.

So I’m bringing to weight loss jabs the principle of fairness which has underpinned the NHS. It should be available based on need and not the ability to pay.

As PA Media reports, at the moment, people with a body mass index (BMI) of 35 or more, or 30 but with a linked health condition, can be prescribed jabs on the NHS through specialist weight-management services. Other people are paying hundreds of pounds a month to get the jabs privately.

Keir Starmer admitted in his BBC interview No 10 “didn’t get the process right” in handling the government’s controversial welfare bill this week, Alexandra Topping reports.

Keir Starmer has told Virgin Radio that the reasons Rachel Reeves was tearful in the Commons yesterday was “purely personal” and “nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with the ups and downs of this week, or her relationship with anybody in the Labour party”.

He said she had a “long chat” with the chancellor last night.

She’s fine … She’s very resilient and strong is Rachel. She’s driven through lots of change in the Labour party. We’ve had to change the Labour party, fought an election together. I’ve seen her resilience first hand. I admire it. She’s a really powerful woman, and she’s also very widely respected.

The sort of messages of concern that have come in over the last 24 hours or so show the great affection and respect in which she is held.

People are held in respect for a reason, and that’s because people know they’re very good at what they’re doing.

He also said it was in the nature of politics that people were “on show the whole time”, even at times of personal difficulty.

We [politicians] are humans in the end and sometimes personal things are obviously on our minds and, in this case, that was the situation ..

There are moments that catch us off guard and if you’re in front of a camera for large periods of your life, unfortunately, that could be caught on camera in a way, if it had been anybody else at work, it would have not really been noticed.

Good morning. Tomorrow it will be a year since the general election, and on Saturday it will be one year from the day when Keir Starmer started forming a government. It has not been a good week to celebrate the anniversary.

In a long interview with the BBC’s Nick Robinson last night, only some of which has now been broadcast (the rest is coming later), Starmer defended Rachel Reeves, his chancellor, saying that she would be in office “for a very long time to come” and that an undisclosed personal matter, not politics, was the reason why she was in tears at PMQs yesterday.

As Graeme Wearden reports on his business live blog, UK government borrowing costs are down a bit this morning.

Yesterday they rose after PMQs as bond traders responded to speculation that Reeves might be sacked, and replaced by a chancellor less committed to fiscal discipline.

But that does not mean the political crisis for the government is over. In his BBC interview, Starmer said he needed to “reflect” on what went wrong this week, when the government had to abandon the main thrust of its welfare bill about 90 minutes before MPs were due to vote on it. He said:

I’m not going to pretend the last few days have been easy, they’ve been tough.

I’m the sort of person that then wants to reflect on that, to ask myself what do we need to ensure we don’t get into a situation like that again, and we will go through that process.

But I also know what we will do and that’s we will come through it stronger.

Labour MPs would love to see the government “come through it stronger” but with some tough decisions just postponed, and autumn tax rises all but inevitable, that won’t be easy.

This morning Starmer wants to focus on something else – his 10-year health plan. Here is Denis Campbell’s preview story.

Starmer will be speaking about this at a press conference this morning.

Here is the agenda for the day:

9.30am: Angela Rayner, the deputy PM and housing secretary, gives a speech at a Local Government Association conference.

10.30am: Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, the health secretary, announce the 10-year NHS plan at an event in London.

After 11.30am: Streeting is expected to make a statement to MPs about the 10-year NHS plan.

3.45pm: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing. (The usual morning one is not happening because of the PM’s event.)

Afternoon: Peers vote on the order banning Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.