Members of the Youth Parliament were probably spared some of the more arcane rules of Commons procedure. In an interview with Nick Robinson for his Political Thinking podcast, Carla Denyer, the Green party co-leader, complains about it being ‘a club with weird rules”. She is particularly critical of one, which she says amounts to “compulsory participation in prayers in a particular religion [the Church of England]” for MPs who want to take part in debates on busy days.

She explains:

Your listeners will have seen photos and videos of how packed it gets, especially on budget day or prime minister’s questions. There’s only room for about 450 people to sit down in there, even though there are 650 MPs. So on busy days, you see MPs in the aisles and perching on a step and so on.

What I didn’t know until I got elected is that you are not allowed to speak in the chamber unless you’re on one of the main benches. You’re not allowed to take part in the democratic debate.

And the way that you make sure you get one of those seats on the benches is to turn up two, three hours before the debate starts, put a prayer card, a little business card with your name on, on the seat you want to sit on, and then you have to turn up for the beginning of prayers. There are Church of England prayers every morning before the debate starts.

Now, that’s our state religion. If that’s part of the tradition that happens at the beginning of every day, I don’t have a problem with that in and of itself.

But the point is that, if you don’t get there for the beginning of prayers and take part in prayers, then the card gets whipped away and you don’t get to sit down. Therefore you don’t get to take part in the debate …

It’s a club with weird rules with, basically, compulsory participation in prayers in a particular religion, whether that’s your faith or not, in order to take part.

Angela Rayner, the deputy PM and housing secretary, has said she wants to give elected mayors “sledgehammer” powers so they can smash obstacles to housebuilding in England.

In a speech at the Convention of the North in Preston, she said that the planning and infrastracture bill would give regional mayors new powers over housing and regeneration.

She went on:

All of you in this room are trying – like I am - to get Britain building again. Yes, building houses, but also building your business, building renewable energy, building data centres.

All too often, we are met by a system that says: “don’t bother”. Well, I am determined to break that system. And I am handing mayors the sledgehammer!

Mayors are at the centre of our plans to build 1.5 million homes, by giving them the powers they need, mayors are an army to take on the blockers. We are backing them to work across huge regional geographies to get the job done. It’s why we’re giving them the powers to call in applications on those large, strategic sites that will really turn the wheel on growth.

And it’s why we’re putting grant funding for regeneration and housing in their hands. To enable mayors to deliver on their plans, we will forge a stronger partnership between them and Homes England. Over time, we will move Homes England to a more regionalised model so that the agency is even more responsive to the economic plan of an area.

Rayner said the planning bill would be introduced into parliament within weeks. And she said, in areas without a mayor, it would allow councils “to come together and set spatial development strategies”.

Downing Street has released the text of Keir Starmer’s response to Anneliese Dodds’ resignation letter. He defends the decision to cut aid spending, saying “protecting our national security must always be the first duty of any government”, but praises her work as a minister. “I know you will have more to contribute in the future,” he says, implying a return to government could be possible.

Keir Starmer is preparing to discuss how to guarantee a peace deal in Ukraine will last when he meets Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Downing Street this weekend, PA Media reports. PA says:

Leaders from across Europe will gather in London on Sunday, following a week which will have seen Starmer, France’s Emmanuel Macron and the Ukrainian president travel for talks with US president Donald Trump.

Ahead of Sunday’s summit focused on security, the prime minister will meet with Zelenskyy separately.

Starmer returned to the UK today following a trip to the White House which went as well as No 10 could have hoped, with Trump clearly pleased with the king’s invitation for an unprecedented second state visit, giving an indication that he would not block the Chagos Islands deal and suggesting a trade deal could spare British exports from US tariffs.

As well as the meeting with Zelenskyy, Sunday will see the prime minister meet separately with Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and chair a call with the Baltic countries – Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – before hosting the summit.

Zelenskyy, Macron and Meloni have been invited to the summit along with leaders from Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Turkey, Finland, Sweden, the Czech Republic and Romania, as well as the Nato secretary general and the presidents of the European Commission and European Council.

They will discuss the next steps in planning for security guarantees if a Ukraine peace deal is reached – something Starmer believes will have to involve the US.

The leaders will consider how to strengthen Ukraine’s current position, with military support and increased economic pressure on Russia.

The UK wants US military assets to provide surveillance, intelligence and – potentially – warplanes providing air cover to deter Vladimir Putin from launching another bid to conquer his neighbour.

The SNP is calling for a Commons vote on the aid cuts announced by Keir Starmer on Tuesday to fund higher defence spending. In a statement issued after Anneliese Dodds’ resignation, Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, said:

Keir Starmer’s wreckless plans to slash UK international aid are strategically damaging, immoral and yet another broken Labour Party manifesto pledge.

MPs must be given a vote for such a drastic and harmful step, which rips up decades of vital work, will plunge some of the world’s poorest people further into desperation and may cost lives.

The Labour MP Clive Lewis told Radio 4’s World at One that Anneliese Dodds was someone who “doesn’t like to rock the boat” and who would not have resigned lightly. And he suggested that other factors, like the government’s general “direction of travel”, might have influenced her decision. He said:

I get the impression from reading her resignation letter that there this was the straw that broke the camel’s back, a rather big straw, but nonetheless it’s one of a series of decisions that have been taken.

The direction of travel of our own government has left not just MPs uneasy, but lots of our voter base, and I think it’s something that the prime minister and the cabinet would do well to reflect on.

Although Dodds was appointed as Keir Starmer’s first shadow chancellor, and served in that post for about a year, she is more leftwing than he is. Some of Starmer’s supporters wanted him to appointed Rachel Reeves in 2020, but she was deemed unacceptable to the left, and to key trade unions, and that is partly why Dodds got the job instead.

Lewis also said he thought it was significant that Dodds, in her resignation letter (see 12.29pm), suggested that Labour should reconsider its fiscal rules and its pledges on tax. He said:

I don’t think I got elected … to cut support to the poorest, whether it’s in this country or overseas. And I think what she’s saying is we need to have a conversation, the world is changing, and when it comes to defence, if we want to go beyond 2.4, 2.5%, maybe 3%, maybe beyond, that’s going to require a real conversation about the fiscal rules that we have, about borrowing and about who’s being taxed.

You have probably noted that 138 aid agencies have written in saying we should be looking at wealth taxes. Well, that’s something lots of Labour MPs, lots of the public, think should be happening.

Lewis said the UK was good at taxing income, but not wealth. That would have to change, said.

We tax income extremely well. We don’t tax wealth anywhere near as much. And this is the conversation this government is going to have to have, because whether it comes to public spending domestically or internationally, or on defence, or investment into net zero and all the other things that we now want to do in terms of industrial manufacturing and supply chains, we need to have that resource.

Lewis was referring to this letter signed by 138 leaders of in the aid sector. It says:

We urgently call on this government to make a statement to parliament, outlining whether the impact of these cuts has been thought through and whether alternative sources of funding were explored before deciding to remove support to those who need it the most. A wealth tax of just 2% on wealth above £10m (affecting just 0.04% of the population) would raise £24bn annually. It is unacceptable that taxing extreme wealth was not looked at before cutting UK aid.

A wealth tax on assets above the value of £10m was Green party policy at the last election.

The Liberal Democrats says the government’s cuts to the aid buget are “unsustainable”. In a comment on Anneliese Dodds’ resignation, Monica Harding, the Lib Dem international affairs spokesperson, said:

Anneliese Dodds has done the right thing. The government’s position on the international aid cut is unsustainable.

Increasing defence spending to 2.5% is the right thing to do as the global threats we face intensify. But doing so by cutting the international aid budget is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The government hasn’t even carried out an impact assessment.

Diplomacy, development and defence are not competing priorities – they are complementary. Where we withdraw our aid, it’s Russia and China who will fill the vacuum.

The news coverage of Keir Starmer’s visit to the White House yesterday is overwhelmingly positive. But in the comment pages, the verdict is a lot more nuanced. Here are extracts from five articles on the visit that are worth a read.

Stephen Bush in the Financial Times says the postive aspects of the trip don’t alter the fundamental difficulties.

You can see the outlines of something that works for all concerned, in policy terms: the UK government continues to buy technology that it thinks is top-of-the-range, it signs some sort of deal trumpeting that, and it avoids tariffs — trebles all round in Downing Street and the Foreign Office.

But: the big picture political thing that the UK government and essentially all of Europe wants is some sign that the combined Macron-Starmer charm offensive might do anything to pull Trump and the US back into the defence of Europe. That didn’t happen. I don’t think anyone reasonably expected that mission to succeed (there is a reason why Starmer already has another appointment in his diplomatic calendar to meet fellow European leaders) but nevertheless, this remains the single biggest problem facing the UK and its neighbours.

In addition, the long-term politics of all this look very fraught. Labour’s liberal base is essentially being asked to stomach: a) a rhetorically warm relationship with a president it hates b) slow, and in some policy areas, non-existent progress on domestic social policy c) cuts to the overseas development budget to finance increases in defence spending.

Freddie Hayward at the New Statesman says the real story from the trip is about Britain’s weakness.

Before No 10 commission a triumphal arch on the Mall, remember the Prime Minister was there to get a security guarantee for Ukraine. What happened? As expected, Trump dismissed the idea of even providing air cover, and instead said the presence of American workers, presumably mining Ukraine’s rare earths, will deter any “playing around”. Trump does not want American troops in danger on Europe’s eastern flank …

The real story of Starmer’s trip was, therefore, British weakness. Look at what was done, not what was said. Flattery occluded the material realities; diplomatic procedure papered over uncouth power imbalances. Those taken in by the sweet words Trump offered to the Prime Minister in the Oval Office should remember that the US president once wrote love letters to Kim Jong Un; that for the first time since 1945 the US voted with Russia, North Korea and Belarus at the UN last week; and that JD Vance has said attacks on free speech in the UK meant the US was questioning whether it was even worth protecting its allies.

David Blair in the Telegraph says three words from Trump made the trip a success.

With three vital words, Donald Trump made Sir Keir Starmer’s visit to the White House a success.

“I support it,” said the president, when asked whether he backed Article V of the Nato treaty, which binds the US and every other member to come to the defence of any ally.

Barely a fortnight after Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, sent tremors through Europe by appearing to suggest that America’s commitment to Nato was conditional and wavering, Mr Trump offered reassurance …

At one point, Mr Trump turned to Sir Keir and asked, half jokingly, whether Britain could take on Russia alone.

Despite the warm words, the message was clear: never forget your dependence on America.

But Ian Dunt in a post on his Substack blog draws the opposite conclusion, and argues that what Trump said showed Nato is not safe.

Keir Starmer’s visit to the White House yesterday was generally well received. The British right were thwarted in their clear desire to see Donald Trump publicly humiliate him. There was a fairly warm reception to the Chagos deal and some mention of avoiding tariffs. That all secured some rare front page praise today, with the Mail saying “what an unlikely bromance”, the Telegraph saying “Trump backs Starmer on Chagos” and the Times emphasising a possible trade deal. The PM’s team will consider that a good day at work. Britain is managing to hide in the undergrowth while this demented gorilla goes on the warpath.

Unfortunately, none of it means anything. The one supreme matter of historic importance at the moment concerns American security guarantees for Ukraine. Without them, there is no Nato. Without them, there is a significantly increased incentive for Russia to continue a policy of imperial expansionism. Without them, we inch closer and closer to European powers entering into direct military conflict with Russia.

But on this point Starmer failed to secure any meaningful assurance at all, just like Emmanuel Macron earlier in the week. You can’t fault either man. They did their best. But the basic truth is that they came back empty handed. “Could you take on Russia by yourselves?” Trump asked Starmer yesterday, a vicious reptilian smile plastered across his face. And in that joke, and the laughter that surrounded it, was the death of Nato, the end of any meaningful US commitment to Europe, the rejection of a united West, a once-great power turned into a small dog that bares its stomach to Russian tyranny.

Gaby Hinsliff in the Guardian says this is no longer a “special relationship”.

Starmer laid on the flattery with the recommended trowel, handing over an invitation from King Charles for an unprecedented second state visit that evidently delighted the president. But though Trump praised him as a ‘special man’, this no longer feels like a special relationship; more the kind of loveless transaction that leaves both sides feeling grubby.

As Patrick Wintour, Rowena Mason and Peter Walker report, the cuts to the aid budget announced on Tueday, that triggered Anneliese Dodds’ resignation, will take UK development spending to its lowest level as a percentage of national income since records began, an analysis says.

Here is a profile of Anneliese Dodds by Kiran Stacey.

Here are some extracts from Anneliese Dodds’ resignation letter, as reported by Pippa Crerar.

On why Dodds thinks the government should review its fiscal rules and tax pledges

Undoubtedly the postwar global order has come crashing down. I believe that we must increase spending on defence as a result; and know that there are no easy paths to doing so.

I stood ready to work with you to deliver that increased spending, knowing some might well have had to come from overseas development assistance [ODA]. I also expected we would collectively discuss our fiscal rules and approach to taxation, as other nations are doing.

Even 3% [raising defence spending to 3% of GDP – the PM’s target for the next parliament] may only be the start, and it will be impossible to raise the substantial resources needed just through tactical cuts to public spending. These are unprecedented times, when strategic decisions for the sake of our country’s security cannot be ducked.

On how the impact of the cuts will be “far greater than presented”

You have maintained that you want to continue support for Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine; for vaccination; for climate; and for rules-based systems.

Yet it will be impossible to maintain these priorities given the depth of the cut; the effect will be far greater than presented, even if assumptions made about reducing asylum costs hold true.

The cut will also likely lead to a UK pull-out from numerous African, Caribbean and Western Balkan nations - at a time when Russia has been aggressively increasing its global presence.

It will likely lead to withdrawal from regional banks and a reduced commitment to the World Bank; the UK being shut out of numerous multilateral bodies; and a reduced voice for the UK in the G7, G20 and in climate negotiations.

All this while China is seeking to rewrite global rules, and when the climate crisis is the biggest security threat of them all.

On why she did not resign earlier this week

It was imperative that you had a united cabinet behind you as you set off for Washington. Your determination to pursue peace through strength for Ukraine is one I share.

It is for that reason that I am only writing to you now that your meeting with President Trump is over, and four days after you informed me of your decision to cut overseas development assistance to 0.3% of GNI.

On Dodds’ concern about Labour being seen to follow Trump

Ultimately, these cuts will remove food and healthcare from desperate people – deeply harming the UK’s reputation. I know you have been clear that you are not ideologically opposed to international development. But the reality is that this decision is already being portrayed as following in President Trump’s slipstream of cuts to USAid.

On how Dodds will continue to support Starmer on other issues

While we differ profoundly on this decision, I remain proud of all that you have achieved since I backed you to be leader of the Labour party …

I wish you, and the government you command, every success for the future.

I will continue to support you, and the change you are determined to deliver - but now I shall do so from the backbenches.

Anneliese Dodds, the international development minister, has quit her post over Keir Starmer’s decision to slash the international aid budget by almost half to pay for a generational increase in defence spending, Pippa Crerar reveals.

Wes Streeting, the health secretary, was doing an interview round this morning to promote an announcement about a new contract for GPs in England. He claims it will end the “8am scramble” for GP appointments.

Explaining how this would work, the Department of Health and Social Care says in its news release:

The new deal agreed yesterday (February 27) between the government and British Medical Association (BMA) will free up doctors from red tape and box-ticking targets to concentrate on what they do best – treating patients.

The new agreed contract will modernise general practice by requiring GP surgeries to allow patients to request appointments online throughout working hours from October, freeing up the phones for those who need them most, and making it easier for practices to triage patients based on medical need. The reforms are part of the government’s Plan for Change to make general practice fit for the future and will support GPs in taking the first steps to end the 8am scramble for appointments, which so many patients currently endure every day - in turn improving access to GPs for everyone.

Commenting on the plan, Streeting said

Today, we have taken the first step to fixing the front door to the NHS, bringing back the family doctor, and ending the 8am scramble.

Over the past decade, funding for GPs has been cut relative to the rest of the NHS, while the number of targets for GPs has soared. That’s why patients are struggling to get an appointment.

This government is cutting the red tape that ties up GPs time and backing them with an extra £889 million next year. In return, more patients will be able to request appointments online and see their regular doctor for each appointment.

Prisoners may have to earn their freedom through “good behaviour credits” rather than be automatically released after a set period as part of an overhaul being considered by the government, Aletha Adu reports.

Reform UK also received a credibility blow from what President Trump said last night. Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader who boasts about his close friendship with Trump, has for weeks now been repeatedly saying that members of the Trump administration are deeply concerned about the Chagos Islands deal. “I have been contacted by very senior officials and advisers from the incoming Republican administration, and every single one of them is appalled at this deal,” he told MPs in December. But now it is looking as if his inside knowledge of what the Trump team really think is not as reliable as he implied.

Farage has not been tweeting about the Trump/Starmer talks. But his fellow Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe has said that Trump is “wrong” on this issue. In a post on social media last night Lowe said:

The Chagos Islands deal is disgustingly rotten to the core. It does NOT serve the British taxpayer. It’s about human rights lawyers abusing their power to indulge their fantasies.

It’s a betrayal.

I hope that Donald Trump reconsiders his support for it.

On this, he is wrong.

On most issues Reform UK strongly supports Trump and his administration.

Good morning. Keir Starmer is back in the UK and, in the unlikely event that he goes into a newsagent’s this morning, he will find that his meeting with President Trump in the White House has secured him perhaps the most favourable press coverage he has had since the general election. Gloria De Piero, the broadcaster and former Labour MP, has the headlines laid out here.

Of course, the success of a government should never be judged by what the national newspapers are saying about it (few other performance indicators are less reliable), but after months of relentlessly critical press coverage, Starmer will be grateful for a spot of respite.

Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has been giving interviews this morning and he told BBC Breakfast that the Starmer/Trump meeting was a “spectacular success”. He explained:

I thought that the meeting yesterday was a spectacular success both on the defence and security issues that President Trump and our prime minister were discussing but also on the enthusiasm President Trump showed for a deeper trading relationship.

Starmer helped to ensure that the visit went well by offering Trump an unprecedented second state visit to the UK. Theresa May offered a state visit when she visited Trump in 2017 and on GB News this morning Streeting was reminded that, after the May invitation, he was one of many people who signed an online petition saying the state visit should be called off. He “definitely” won’t be doing that again, he assured the programme.

Even Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative party leader, has had something good to say about the visit, admitting it secured some “positive outcomes”. But a statement she released late last night indirectly confirmed the result has been disappointing for her party. “Trump snubs Badenoch” is not the headline anyone was writing last night, but for CCHQ it is probably the takeaway that matters. The Tories have recently starting using the attack line that “when [Stamer] negotiates Britain loses”. Last night that went up in smoke, as Starmer’s negotiating skills got extravagant praise from Mr Art of the Deal himself. And on Wednesday the Conservative party explicitly said it wanted Trump to block the government’s Chagos Islands deal. Yesterday Trump did the opposite, signalling that he is inclined to approve it.

In her tweet last night Badenoch said the Tories will continue to oppose it.

The President’s words on the Chagos deal aren’t a guarantee it serves *our* national interest—or UK taxpayers.

We haven’t seen the final terms of a deal, but we mustn’t foot the bill for surrendering territory the UK already holds.

But with Trump apparently on side, Starmer will find it much easier to persuade parliament, and the public, that the deal is in the national interest. What until yesterday was a strong campaigning issue for the Tories has now lost quite a lot of its potency.

Here is Pippa Crerar’s story about the White House talks.

And you can read a comprehensive account on yesterday’s blog. There will be more reaction throughout the day.

Here is what is coming up.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

11.55am: Angela Rayner, the deputy PM, speaks at the Convention of the North in Preston.

12.30pm: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, and John Healey, the defence secretary, hold a roundtable meeting with the defence sector.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line 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. 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.