Andrew Mitchell, the Foreign Office minister, told MPs that if Israel launches an offensive against Rafah in Gaza, that will have “the most appalling humanitarian consequences”.

He was speaking in the Commons in response to an urgent question tabled by his Labour shadow, David Lammy, who urged the government to work to prevent such an attack.

Lammy also said levels of aid being supplied to Gaza were “woefully inadequate”. He said:

Famine in Gaza is imminent, half the population is expected to face catastrophic levels of hunger, the highest number of people ever recorded under this system. Only twice in 20 years have famine conditions been reached.

But what distinguishes the horror in Gaza from what has come before is this is not driven by drought or natural disaster – it is man-made. It is the consequences of war, it is the consequence of aid that is available not reaching those who need it. Food is piled up in trucks just a few kilometres away, while children in Gaza are starving. It’s unbearable, and it must not go on.

International law is clear, Israel has an obligation to ensure the provision of aid, the binding measures ordered by the ICJ [International Court of Justice] require this. The world has demanded it for months, yet still aid flows are woefully inadequate.

Lammy also said an attack against Rafah would risk “catastrophic humanitarian consequences” and he asked what the government was doing to stop that.

Mitchell replied:

The foreign secretary and the prime minister and indeed all our allies have consistently warned that an offensive against Rafah at this time would have the most appalling humanitarian consequences.

Mitchell also said the government was “deeply concerned about the growing risk of famine, exacerbated by the spread of disease and of course the terrible psychosocial impacts of the conflict that will be felt for years to come”.

Downing Street has urged peers to approve the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill when it returns to the House of Lords tomorrow.

Peers added 10 amendments to the bill when they debated it, all of which were intended to add safeguards for refugees facing deportation to Rwanda, but MPs removed all those amendments in votes last night.

The bill will not become law until the Lords and the Commons agree and at this stage of the process it is normal for a bill to shuttle between both houses – a process known as “ping pong” – until there is consensus. Eventually the Lords almost always backs down, but occasionally it can secure a minor concession in the process.

Today No 10 urged peers to back down so that the bill can get royal assent quickly. At the lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson told journalists:

Not acting, in the government’s view, is not an option and it certainly wouldn’t be a compassionate route.

We want to end the business of people-smuggling and ensure that vulnerable people are not lured into making the perilous journey across the Channel, so there’s an opportunity for the Lords to work with the government this week and pass this bill.

Peers are expected to reinstate new versions of some of the amendments originally passed in the Lords tomorrow and this could lead to the bill not becoming law until after Easter.

In the Commons last night the government had ranging from 57 to 78 in the divisions overturning the Lords amendments. Only one Conservative voted with the opposition – Sir Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, who voted against the government four times.

Explaining his position, in his speech during the debate last night Buckland said “it is vital that we do not end up in a position where the law goes so far ahead of reality – say, through Rwanda’s failure to carry out its treaty obligations, or its slowness to do so – that we create that legal fiction [saying Rwands is safe if it is not] that a lot of us are rightly worried about”.

Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, is getting more criticism from the Labour left over her Mais lecture tonight, in which (according to extracts released in advance) she is going to say Labour wants an “inclusive” version of the “decade of renewal” that followed Margaret Thatcher’s election in. 1979. (See 9.16am and 9.32am.)

This is from Momentum, the leftwing Labour group.

This is a Labour Leadership out of touch with the labour movement and Labour values.

We want to overturn Thatcher’s disastrous settlement, not recreate it.

And this is from Richard Leonard MSP, the former Scottish Labour party leader.

In the 1980s manufacturing was butchered, factory after factory closed, privatisation was let rip, unemployment rocketed, profits boomed, the wage share fell, the rich got richer, and inequality soared.

No rewriting of history.

Thatcher didn’t renew the economy, she broke it.

In her speech Reeves will say:

As we did at the end of the 1970s, we stand at an inflection point, and as in earlier decades, the solution lies in wide-ranging supply-side reform to drive investment, remove the blockages constraining our productive capacity, and fashion a new economic settlement, drawing on evolutions in economic thought.

Thatcher’s government was associated with extensive supply-side reforms, including privatisation, deregulation and restrictions on trade unions.

In her speech Reeves will also stress the need for supply-side reform, but she will refer to the case for reform of planning laws, public services, the labour market and democracy.

She will also say that “unlike the 1980s, growth in the years to come must be broad-based, inclusive, and resilient”.

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory MP and former business secretary, has described as “barmy” a ruling from Ofcom saying that GB News broke impartiality rules because it allowed him to present news during his show on the channel.

Ofcom said GB News had broken these rules on five occasions – two relating to programmes presented by Rees-Mogg, and three relating to programmes presented by Esther McVey, the Cabinet Office minister, and her husband, the Tory MP Philip Davies.

The regulator said that, while it was acceptable for MPs to present current affairs programmes, “news, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality, and … a politician cannot be a newsreader, news interviewer or news reporter”.

The five complaints all related to segments of the shows where the MPs were presenting news. One related to Rees-Mogg interviewing a GB News reporter about a murder in Nottingham and the MP told Times Radio this morning that he thought it was “barmy” to suggest he had not been impartial. He said:

This strikes me as completely barmy that reporting, in a programme that lasts for an hour, an event that has happened, where somebody has been stabbed, where does due impartiality come into somebody’s being stabbed?

I just think this is a really eccentric judgment on that particular issue. It’s just a strange thing to say that there’s a question of impartiality on a stabbing. Stabbing people is wrong.

Was I meant to have to stabber on and say, can you give me your view of why you’ve carried out this stabbing? It’s just bizarre to say that due impartiality could possibly have been breached in relation to a stabbing.

In its adjudication, Ofcom said that, even thought what Rees-Mogg said about the murder may have been impartial, the fact that he is an MP meant that viewers’ perception of what was being reported may have been coloured by his politics. It said:

We recognise the factual nature of the content delivered by Jacob ReesMogg, which did not include any partial comment on, or discussion of, the wider issues involved.

However, as set out above, there are additional protections afforded to news because of its fundamental importance in a democratic society.

In Ofcom’s view, particular care needs to be taken to preserve the due impartiality of news content on licensed services – not only in terms of the content itself, but also in respect of its presentation and how it is likely to be perceived by viewers.

Politicians have an inherently partial role in society and news content presented by them is likely to be viewed by audiences in light of that perceived bias.

For that reason, we consider that the presentation of broadcast news content by a politician without exceptional editorial justification gives rise to an inherent lack of due impartiality which conflicts with the fundamental standard in rule 5.1 of the code.

Section 5.1 of the code says: “News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.”

Lucy Frazer, the culture secretary, has raised concerns about an exhibit in the Victoria and Albert Museum which appears to describe former Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher as among “contemporary villains”.

The caption at the exhibition, which mentions Thatcher alongside Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden as people who have been portrayed as baddies in puppet shows, has been portrayed as an insult to the former PM in reports in rightwing papers.

Asked about the terminology used by the museum, Frazer told LBC:

Yes I saw that and I didn’t think that that was appropriate.

Well, I think in describing objects, in museums and galleries, I think the creator has an important role to look at history to make sure that their objects are understood. But these are matters for those individual institutions.

The V&A description said:

Punch and Judy is seen as traditionally British, but it evolved from the 16th-century Italian street performance commedia dell’arte.

Although aimed at a family audience, the original narrative in its Victoria heyday featured domestic violence, hangings and racist caricatures – a jarring and inacceptable combination for modern audiences.

Over the years, the evil character in this seaside puppet show has shifted from the Devil to unpopular public figures including Adolf Hitler, Margaret Thatcher and Osama bin Laden, to offer contemporary villains.

The V&A said it was always open to feedback from visitors and that it would review the wording and update it “if necessary”.

Richard Tice, the Reform UK leader, has claimed that it would be defamatory to call his party “far-right”.

He spoke out after the BBC apologised for using the phrase to describe the party in an article at the weekend primarily about the Liberal Democrats’ conference.

The BBC said:

In an article about the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference we wrongly described the political party Reform UK as far-right when referring to polling.

This sentence was subsequently removed from the article as it fell short of our usual editorial standards.

While the original wording was based on news agency copy, we take full responsibility and apologise for the error.

And in response Tice said:

The BBC has apologised for the news website referring to Reform UK as ‘far-right’ following an intervention from my lawyers.

My lawyers are also in touch with other news organisations who repeated the BBC line.

To be clear, I view this as defamatory and libellous.

The fact that the BBC has chosen not to use the term to describe Reform UK may deter other media organisations from using it too, but it does not prove that it is libellous. Ultimately that is something that would have to be decided by a court.

Journalists and commentators sometimes use the term “far-right” quite loosely, and it is almost always pejorative. But political scientists do use the term with care and precision. Last year we reported on Dutch academics who have studied European political parties to consider how many of them might be called “far-right”. They considered whether the Conservative party could be described in these terms, but ultimately decided against it. “In the end we didn’t because nativism was not their core focus. But we may in future,” Matthijs Rooduijn, the political scientist in charge of the project said.

One of the academics who has studied this issue most closely is Cas Mudde and in his book The Far Right Today he argues that the far right divides into two categories: the extreme right which “rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule”; and the radical right, which “accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law and separation of powers”.

Reform UK is a party that respects democracy and clearly does not fit the extreme version of Mudde’s definition. But the label might apply to some aspects of its politics. For example, the call by Lee Anderson, the party’s new MP, last year for the government to ignore the supreme court after it ruled against the Rwanda policy would count as far-right within Mudde’s radical right category.

Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, will give evidence to the Covid inquiry on Thursday 23 May, the inquiry had announced.

He had been due to give evidence last year, but he was unable to because he was off work for health reasons.

As PA Media reports, Case is expected to face questions on highly critical WhatsApp messages that emerged during evidence last year showing his exasperation with the handling of the pandemic under Boris Johnson’s premiership.

In July 2020, before he became cabinet secretary, he said: “I’ve never seen a bunch of people less well-equipped to run a country” in a message to Lord Sedwill, who was the civil service chief at the time.

Case also described Johnson and his inner circle as “basically feral” and suggested the then-prime minister’s wife Carrie was “the real person in charge” in No 10.

The Conservative party has been fined £10,750 by the Electoral Commission for failing to accurately report non-cash donations worth more than £200,000.

The donations related to an employee who had been seconded to the party by a donor. The commission said:

The party under-reported non-cash donations, in the form of an employee seconded to the party by a donor between April 2020 to December 2023. The non-cash donations were under reported by more than £200,000, when the seconded employee went from part-time to full-time work at the party.

The party also reported late a single non-cash donation relating to the same seconded employee, in December 2023.

Louise Edwards, director of regulation and digital transformation at the commission, said:

Our investigation into the Conservative and Unionist Party found a number of donations inaccurately reported or reported late. The political finance laws we enforce are there to ensure transparency in how parties are funded and to increase public confidence in our system, so it’s important donations are fully and clearly reported.

Where we find offences, we carefully consider the circumstances before deciding whether to impose a sanction. We take into account a range of factors before making our final decision, including proportionality.

A Labour party selection contest is being investigated by the police over allegations of “computer misuse” after reports of a data breach, PA Media reports. PA says:

The selection process for a parliamentary candidate in Croydon East was paused by the party in November last year after complaints that data on local members provided to some candidates was inaccurate and allegations the membership database had been tampered with.

Last night the Metropolitan police confirmed they were now investigating the matter, following the conclusion of Labour’s own inquiry.

A spokesperson for the force said: “We have received allegations of computer misuse in relation to an internal selection process for a political party in Croydon during October and November last year. The Met’s Cyber Crime team are investigating and enquiries are ongoing.”

The news comes a week after one of the candidates for selection in Croydon East withdrew from the contest, citing abuse he had received during the original process.

Joel Bodmer, an organiser with the trade union Unison, made the announcement that he was withdrawing on 12 March.

He said: “I do not want to expose myself or my family to the distressing level of abuse that arose from some quarters during the original selection campaign. My personal circumstances are now very different from when I put myself forward for Croydon East in the summer of 2023 and I do not currently have the emotional energy required for this contest.”

Labour declined to comment while there was an ongoing police investigation.

Good morning. Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, is delivering the Mais lecture today, an annual City of London event where someone from the world of finance is invited to give an hour-long, heavyweight address on economics. (It’s called the Mais lecture, not the Mais speech, for a reason.) It’s a very presitigious gig, and the organisers like to invite someone powerful and important. It seems they didn’t want to hear from Jeremy Hunt.

We won’t get the full text of Reeve’s lecture until later, but Labour has released some substantial extracts in advance and there are two elements of particular note.

First, in news terms, Reeves is announcing plans to rewire the Treasury to put more focus on achieving growth. Larry Elliott has the details here.

Second, in political positioning terms, Reeves is aligning herself with Margaret Thatcher. She is stressing the need for supply-side reform, and she is arguing that Britain’s challenges are similar to those faced in 1979. She will say:

We have found ourselves in a moment of political turbulence and recurrent crises with the burden falling on the shoulders of working people.

With at its root, a failure to deliver the supply-side reform needed to equip Britain to compete in a fast changing world ….

I remain an optimist about our ability to rise to the challenges we face. If we can bring together public and private sectors, in a national mission – directed at restoring strong economic growth across Britain.

When we speak of a decade of national renewal, that is what we mean. As we did at the end of the 1970s, we stand at an inflection point, and as in earlier decades, the solution lies in wide-ranging supply-side reform to drive investment, remove the blockages constraining our productive capacity, and fashion a new economic settlement, drawing on evolutions in economic thought.

But Reeves will also stress that in some respects she does not want to follow the Thatcher model. She will say that Labour wants “a new chapter in Britain’s economic history” but she will add:

And unlike the 1980s, growth in the years to come must be broad-based, inclusive, and resilient.

Growth achieved through stability – built on the strength of our institutions. Investment – through partnership between active government and enterprising business. And reform – of our planning system, our public services, our labour market, and our democracy.

In other words, she’s offering inclusive Thatcherism.

This does not seem to be going down well with the Labour left (more on that soon), but Labour’s campaigns team will probably care more about the fact that they are getting positive coverage on the front page of the Daily Telegraph.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Rishi Sunak chairs cabinet.

10.30am: Ed Miliband, the shadow secretary for climate change and net zero, gives a speech at a Green Alliance conference.

10.30am: David Neal, the former independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, gives evidence to the Lords justice and home affairs committee.

11am: Andrea Leadsom, the health minister, gives evidence to the Commons health committee about dentistry.

11.30am: Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, takes questions in the Commons.

1.30pm: Mark Drakeford takes his final first minister’s questions in the Senedd (Welsh parliament).

3pm: Hunt gives evidence to the Lords economic affairs committee.

4pm: Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, gives evidence to the liaison committee’s inquiry into strategic thinking in government.

Also, the government is publishing its football governance bill today.

If you want to contact me, do use the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often 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 in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.