Joe Biden’s position among congressional Democrats eroded further on Monday when an influential House committee member lent his voice to calls for him to end his presidential campaign following last month’s spectacular debate failure.

Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the armed services committee in the House of Representatives, issued the plea just hours after the president emphatically rejected calls for him to step aside in a letter to the party’s congressional contingent.

Biden had also expressed determination to continue in an unscheduled phone interview with the MSNBC politics show Morning Joe.

But in a clear sign such messaging may be falling on deaf ears, Smith suggested that sentiments of voters that he was too old to be an effective candidate and then president for the next four years was clear from opinion polls.

“The president’s performance in the debate was alarming to watch and the American people have made it clear they no longer see him as a credible candidate to serve four more years as president,” Smith, a congressman from Washington state, said in a statement.

“Since the debate, the president has not seriously addressed these concerns.”

He said the president should stand aside “as soon as possible”, though he qualified it by saying he would support him “unreservedly” if he insisted on remaining as the nominee.

But his statement’s effect was driven home in a later interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, one of the two moderators in the 27 June debate with Donald Trump in which Biden’s hoarse-voiced and frequently confused performance and demeanour plunged his re-election campaign into existential crisis.

“Personally, I think Kamala Harris [the vice-president] would be a much better, stronger candidate,” Smith told Tapper, adding that Biden was “not the best person to carry the Democratic message”.

He implicitly criticised Democratic colleagues – and Biden campaign staff – who were calling for the party to put the debate behind them as “one bad night”.

“A lot of Democrats are saying: ‘Well let’s move on, let’s stop talking about it’,” said Smith. “We are not the ones who are bringing it up. The country is bringing it up. And the campaign strategy of ‘be quiet and fall in line and let’s ignore it’ simply isn’t working.”

Smith joins the ranks of five Democratic members of Congress who publicly demanded Biden’s withdrawal last week. He was among at least four others who spoke in favour of it privately in a virtual meeting on Sunday with Hakeem Jeffries, the party’s leader in the House.

Having the ranking member of the armed services committee join the siren voices urging his withdrawal may be particularly damaging to Biden’s cause in a week when he is to host a summit of Nato leaders in Washington.

The alliance’s heads of government and state will gather in the US capital on Tuesday for an event that is likely to increase the international spotlight on Biden, who is due to give a rare press conference on its final day on Thursday, an occasion likely to be scrutinised for further misstatements and evidence of declining cognitive faculties. Unscripted appearances have been rare in Biden’s three-and-a-half-year tenure.

In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos last Friday, Biden stressed his role in expanding Nato’s membership and leading its military aid programme to help Ukraine fend off Russia’s invasion as a key element of his qualification to continue as his party’s nominee and be re-elected as president.

In the surprise interview with Morning Joe on Monday, Biden put the blame for his current predicament on Democratic elites, an undefined designation which he may now expand to include Smith.

As the 2022 tennis season began to wind down in the cold indoor stadiums across Europe, Novak Djokovic found himself in an unusual situation. In the final of the Paris Masters that November, the Serb’s high level would have been sufficient to defeat many adversaries, but for once his opponent was even better. That night, a fearless 19-year-old named Holger Rune toppled Djokovic to win his first Masters 1000 title.

Performing at the highest level week in, week out, though, is a much greater task than producing occasional, early flashes of brilliance. Two years on from that striking encounter, Rune has not made as much progress as he hoped and, this time, the match-up was rather a mismatch. Under the Centre Court roof on Monday evening, an excellent Djokovic thoroughly outplayed Rune and silenced the crowd, returning to the quarter-finals of Wimbledon with a comfortable 6-3, 6-4, 6-2 win.

The match was also notable for the crowd’s cheers, with spectators bellowing “Ruuuune” throughout the evening in a deep, elongated chant that sounded similar to booing. After his victory, Djokovic thanked the respectful parts of the crowd and criticised those who he felt disrespected him. When the on-court interviewer suggested that fans may have just been supporting Rune rather than disrespecting him, Djokovic responded:

“They were, I don’t accept it,” he said. “No. I know they were cheering for Rune but that’s an excuse to also boo. Listen, I’ve been on the tour for more than 20 years, so trust me, I know all the tricks. I know how it works. It’s fine, it’s OK. I focus on the respectful people, who have respect, that paid the ticket to come and watch tonight, and love tennis and appreciate the effort that the players put in here. I’ve played in a much more hostile environment, trust me. You guys can’t touch me.”

The victory marks a 15th career quarter-final for Djokovic at Wimbledon and a 60th major quarter-final. Regardless of how far he goes, it already ranks as one of his most remarkable quarter-final runs. Just 26 days before Wimbledon began, Djokovic underwent surgery on the torn medial meniscus that forced him to withdraw from the quarter-finals of the French Open.

At the time, it seemed reasonable to assume that Djokovic might not be present at Wimbledon in any form, particularly with the Olympics looming a few weeks later on clay. Instead, he continues to beat quality tennis players, to grow with every round and he remains a clear title contender even with the tournament favourites still present in the draw.

Between his breakthrough win over Djokovic in Paris and his rise to a top-four ranking last year, for some time Rune seemed to be the young player closest to breaking through after Carlos Alcaraz. But this sport is not easy. While Alcaraz has continued to soar and Jannik Sinner has stepped up, this has not been a straightforward year for Rune. His lack of confidence was reflected in his very first service game here, the 15th seed throwing in a horrible, error-strewn game to lose his serve and trail 2-0. Djokovic won the first 12 points of the match.

Throughout the match, Djokovic served well, dictated most exchanges from the baseline and cycled through his arsenal of shots well, keeping Rune guessing with drop shots and net approaches while remaining solid in key moments. As the crowd’s cheers became louder, Djokovic gestured towards some members of the audience. Still, he remained extremely solid as he closed out the win.

“To all the fans that have respect and stayed here tonight, thank you from the bottom of my heart, I appreciate it,” Djokovic said. “And to all the fans who have chosen to disrespect me, have a gooood night,” he added, referencing the “Rune” chants.

For his part, Rune did not see any issue with the crowd’s behaviour and he referenced fans attempting similar chants during their meeting in 2021. “If you don’t know what was happening, probably it sounded like ‘boo’. But if we all know what happened, it was my name. Obviously he’s played so many matches since he played me last time. If he didn’t remember, it could probably sound different for him. I don’t think it played a massive part in the match,” said Rune.

Djokovic will next face Alex de Minaur, the ninth seed, in quarter-final No 60 on Wednesday. Earlier, De Minaur defeated Arthur Fils 6-2, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3.

The Australian suffered an injury scare at the end of the match after sliding out to his forehand, but he later said he was OK. Taylor Fritz, seeded 13th, continued to play some of the best tennis of his career as he pulled off a spectacular comeback from two sets down to defeat Alexander Zverev, the fourth seed, 4-6, 6-7 (4), 6-4, 7-6 (3), 6-3.

David Cameron has left Rishi Sunak’s frontbench as the Conservatives unveiled an interim shadow ministerial team ahead of a party leadership race.

The party said Lord Cameron, the former foreign secretary, and Richard Holden, who chaired the Tories through the disastrous election campaign, had resigned from Sunak’s top team. Andrew Mitchell, who had the largely honorary title of deputy foreign secretary in government, becomes shadow foreign secretary.

Sunak is leader of the opposition until he is replaced, and Jeremy Hunt and James Cleverly are staying on as shadow chancellor and shadow home secretary. Oliver Dowden remains Sunak’s deputy.

Most of the other changes are connected to former ministers losing their seats or stepping down, with many replaced by former junior ministers from the same department.

James Cartlidge has taken over from Ben Wallace on defence, Ed Argar replaces Alex Chalk on justice; Damian Hinds takes the place of Gillian Keegan on education; Julia Lopez takes over from Lucy Frazer on culture; and Andrew Griffith replaces Michelle Donelan in the science and technology brief.

Kemi Badenoch has changed jobs, moving from business secretary to shadow communities secretary, taking the brief from Michael Gove who stepped down as an MP. One of her former junior ministers, Kevin Hollinrake, takes over at business.

Chris Philp, the former policing minister, has been given the role of shadow Commons leader after Penny Mordaunt, who did the equivalent job in government, lost her seat.

Writing on X after his resignation was announced, Cameron said: “It’s been a huge honour to serve as foreign secretary, but clearly the Conservative party in opposition will need to shadow the new foreign secretary from the Commons.

“So I told Rishi Sunak that I would step back. I’m delighted that the shadow foreign secretary role has gone to my good friend Andrew Mitchell. As a committed Conservative I will continue to support the party and help where I can as we rebuild from the very disappointing election result.”

Among former ministers who have stayed in the same brief are Victoria Atkins in health, Steve Barclay in environment, Mel Stride as shadow work and pension secretary and Claire Coutinho shadowing on energy security and net zero.

Among other replacements, Helen Whately, who was social care minister, becomes shadow transport secretary after Mark Harper, the transport secretary, lost his seat.

In place of Holden, Richard Fuller, a Bedfordshire MP since 2010, has been made interim party chair.

Fuller said: “The Conservative party has had a difficult election and it is important that we regroup and reflect on these results. We should also challenge ourselves candidly and deeply on the strengths of the Conservative party across the country and outline where improvements can be made. United as a party, we will be ready and able to hold this new Labour government to account every step of the way.”

Whoever replaces Sunak as leader would be expected to appoint their own shadow cabinet. The timetable for choosing the new leader has not yet been set, with differences in the party over how quickly it should be done.

Allies of Sunak say he does not intend to stay on beyond the summer, meaning the Conservatives could face the prospect of having to appoint an interim leader if the contest goes on for several more months.

The best iPhone may be the one you already own. There is generally no need to buy a fresh phone just because new models have been released, as hardware updates have broadly become iterative, adding small bits to an already accomplished package rather than reinventing the wheel.

But if you do want to replace it, either buying new or refurbished, here are the best of the current crop of Apple smartphones. Note: Apple is expected to release new models in September, which means it might be worth waiting to buy a new iPhone if you can.

Even if the new models are not on your radar, older models will be reduced in price, making them a better deal more or less overnight. This guide will be updated once the new models are tested, compared and ranked.

Best for most people: iPhone 15 Pro

The iPhone 15 Pro is the step-up option in Apple’s lineup and has all the latest features without being too big in your hand or pocket. The 6.1in OLED screen is bright and smooth with its 120Hz refresh rate – double that of cheaper iPhones – and is big enough for most things while keeping the handset relatively compact.

The 15 Pro also has a fancy new titanium body, which is stronger than the aluminium of other iPhones, and makes the phone significantly lighter than previous Pro models. The new “action button” replaces the mute switch, which you can set to open the camera or other useful features. The starting 128GB of storage will be fine if you store photos in the cloud, but those who need them stored locally should buy one of the more expensive versions with 256GB or 512GB storage.

The USB-C port handles charging and connecting a range of accessories, including practically any USB-C charger common to iPads, computers and Android phones, though it is not compatible with any older Lightning connector accessories. MagSafe in the back supports various accessories and Qi/Qi2 wireless charging at up to 15W.

It has a high (IP68) water-resistance rating – to depths of six metres for 30 minutes – and is more durable than previous generations. However, a good case is still needed to help it survive drops.

The 12MP selfie camera is the same as other recent iPhones for decent self-portraits. The triple camera on the back is excellent, featuring a 48MP main camera producing great-looking, detailed images across a range of lighting conditions, a solid 12MP ultra-wide camera for landscapes or big group shots, plus a good 12MP telephoto camera with a 3x optical zoom that cheaper iPhones don’t have. The iPhone 15 Pro Max still has it beat on reach with its 5x optical zoom camera, however.

Another major advantage of the 15 Pro over the vanilla iPhone 15 is that it has the newer A17 Pro chip, which will be required to enable Apple’s new AI features for Siri, images, text and other generative bits that are due as part of the free iOS 18 in September. These “Apple Intelligence” upgrades are likely to be key to many new core features for the iPhone going forward, so the 15 Pro is more futureproofed than cheaper models. It currently runs iOS 17 and will probably be supported by software updates for seven or more years, meaning you can keep it and use it for a long time.

The iPhone 15 Pro is now more than nine months old, so will be available refurbished if you want to make a more sustainable choice and save money.

Buy: from £999 at apple.com or £899 at johnlewis.com

Why should you buy it?
The iPhone 15 Pro is the sweet spot for performance, features, camera, price and futureproofing in Apple’s current lineup, with almost all the best bits without the massive screen and £200 extra cost of the iPhone 15 Pro Max.

Buy if: You want the Pro screen, titanium body, better camera and futureproofing without a massive display

Don’t buy if: You want the best camera on an iPhone or a massive screen

Cheaper alternative: iPhone 15

The iPhone 15 is still good with more “Pro” features than previous generations, including the modern “Dynamic Island” notch design within its 6.1in OLED screen that was first introduced on the Pro line in 2022. It has a USB-C port and MagSafe for wireless charging, lasts a solid day on battery, feels snappy in use and starts with 128GB of storage just like the Pro models.

However, it has no optical zoom camera on the back, limited to just the good main and ultra-wide lenses, which means it lacks reach to distant subjects, making do with inferior digital zoom. It also lacks the new A17 Pro chip, which means despite the older A16 Bionic still being snappy, it won’t get the new Apple Intelligence features as part of iOS 18 in September. That makes it less futureproofed than the 15 Pro, despite likely being supported with software updates for a similar number of years.

Buy: from £799 at apple.com or £699 at johnlewis.com

Why should you buy it?
The cheaper iPhone 15 offers the standard iPhone experience at a relatively pocketable size for those who aren’t interested in futureproofing.

Buy if: You want the default, good iPhone experience today

Don’t buy if: You want optical zoom on your camera or upcoming AI features

Best for camera: iPhone 15 Pro Max

The iPhone 15 Pro Max is the Apple phone with everything maxed out. It has the biggest, brightest and fastest screen on an iPhone, measuring 6.7in, which is beautiful, but it makes the Pro Max a big phone in hands and pockets.

The phone also has all the trimmings of the regular 15 Pro, including the titanium sides and action button, but with a bigger battery for a longer running time and twice the starting storage at 256GB. The big upgrade for the iPhone 15 Pro Max, however, is a 5x optical zoom telephoto camera. It comes at about a £200 premium on its smaller “Pro” sibling, placing it at the top end of the market.

Buy: £1,199 at apple.com or £1,099 at johnlewis.com

Why should you buy it?
The 15 Pro Max is the biggest and most advanced iPhone model, with upgrades across the board, the best of which is the 5x optical zoom on the camera.

Buy if: You want the best camera on an iPhone

Don’t buy if: You don’t want a massive screen

Best value new: iPhone SE (2022)

The iPhone SE is something of a throwback. It takes the old design of the iPhone – used until 2017 – complete with a Touch ID home button and chunky bezels around the screen, and puts a more modern chip at its heart.

The third-generation iPhone SE released in 2022 is still the best-value new iPhone, with an A15 Bionic chip from the 2021 iPhone 13 and 5G. The 4.7in screen is small and dim by modern standards, but the phone isn’t that small due to the chunky design. It lacks Face ID and other modern iPhone bits, won’t get Apple Intelligence features and only has 64GB of storage at its base price. The single camera on the back is a bit weak.

Buy: £429 at apple.com or johnlewis.com

Why should you buy it?
The iPhone SE (2022) is the cheapest new iPhone.

Buy if: You want the best-value iPhone, but don’t want to buy a refurbished model

Don’t buy if: You want a modern iPhone experience or good camera

Others still on sale at Apple

The iPhone 14, released in 2022, has the older notch design but is still a good iPhone. Although not good value at its RRP of £699, this is one to look out for refurbished, with about five years of software support expected.

Buy: £699 at apple.com or £599 at johnlewis.com

The iPhone 13, released in 2021, is a model that’s getting on a bit and is pricey at its RRP of £599. However, it could make for a solid refurbished buy with roughly four years of further software support expected.

Buy: £599 at apple.com or £499 at johnlewis.com; or £509 for a refurbished handset at apple.com

Replace or spruce up?

If your iPhone is running slow or the battery doesn’t last as long as it used to, check its health in settings. If it’s past its best, a replacement battery costs £65 to £95 through Apple, or cheaper via third-parties, and will give your iPhone a new lease of life. Also, check you have enough free storage and clear out unused apps or content, offload photos and videos to the cloud or delete music. Aim for at least 2GB of free space.

If your phone is worn out, broken beyond repair or no longer receives crucial security updates, it’s time to upgrade. The latest software, version iOS 17, supports devices back to 2018’s iPhone XS/XR, so anything older should be replaced in the near future – though some older models may still receive occasional security updates from Apple.

What to look out for in a refurb?

Buying refurbished phones is better for the planet and your wallet. The iPhone makes for an excellent refurbished phone, typically staying responsive for years and being supported with software updates for about seven years from release, or longer in some circumstances. That means you can use an older model for several years before it will need replacing.

There are broadly two types of refurbished iPhone available: those refurbished and sold directly from Apple that come, essentially, as new, and those refurbished by third-parties that come in various grades or condition – but cost less.

The grades vary between retailers, but roughly you can expect:

• Grade A: Virtually identical to a new phone on the outside, usually with the original box and accessories. These are often customer returns rather than trade-ins and are the most expensive.

• Grade B: In full working order but typically with light scratches, dents or nicks, and may come with original accessories.

• Grade C: In full working order but visibly worn and typically sold without their original accessories.

• Grade D: Also known as “for spares and repairs” or similar. These are broken devices sold for people to fix or gut for parts.

There are many third-party retailers of refurbished phones. CeX and Game are popular UK high-street chains that deal in secondhand and refurbished phones. Established online retailers include MusicMagpie and Envirofone, while some phone operators also sell refurbished iPhones, including O2, GiffGaff, EE and Vodafone. Marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay and refurb-specialist BackMarket also have a wide range. Wherever you buy, there are certain things to look out for in any refurbished iPhone:

Battery health
Batteries wear out, typically only maintaining up to 80% of their original capacity after 500 full-charge cycles (about two to three years of nightly charging). Has it been replaced?

Charging port
Check for signs of damage, as the charging port could be one of the first parts to break.

Buttons
Check that all the buttons work without pressing too hard; a broken button could render the phone difficult to use and may be expensive to fix.

Touch ID/Face ID
Check the biometric features still work, as some repairs may cause them not to function.

Network locks
Check the iPhone works with your provider, as some are originally sold locked to networks and must be unlocked before being used on another.

Unauthorised parts
Not all repairs are done by the manufacturer or using certified parts, which can cause problems.

Check it isn’t stolen
Check the iPhone’s 15-digit IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) number against a database of stolen phones through a service such as CheckMEND or similar.

Warranty
What kind of warranty does the retailer offer on its refurbished phones?

Do not buy

• Any model older than an iPhone 12 because you won’t get many years of software support before you’ll have to replace it.

• Any iPhone 12 mini or iPhone 13 mini without a new battery. They both had relatively short battery life to start with, which meant more frequent charging than larger iPhones. Their batteries wear out faster, resulting in even shorter battery life.

How we test

We combine real-world testing alongside various tools, such as benchmarking systems that perform standardised tasks to measure performance, which help us to evaluate a phone, confirm that it performs as expected and to directly compare it with the competition and predecessors.

We use the phones out and about across a range of times and environments, from firing off emails on packed commuter trains to weekends spent shooting photos while walking in national parks, and everywhere in between. By doing all the things a typical smartphone user would, such as messaging, browsing, using myriad apps, listening to music, watching videos, playing games and navigating the real world, we get a good impression of how a smartphone handles the rigours of day-to-day life – including how long the battery lasts and how strong its wireless performance holds up. This is combined with results from specific tests, for things such as the camera zoom, video playback and charging, to inform the review and help rank phones.

Why should you trust me?

I have been reviewing consumer electronics for 16 years, with more than a decade spent as the Guardian’s gadget expert. In that time I’ve seen all manner of tech fads come and go, smartphone giants rise and fall, the cutting edge morph into the mainstream, and have poked, prodded and evaluated more than 1,000 devices – sometimes to destruction.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is being investigated by the environmental watchdog after Conservative ministers authorised a bee-killing pesticide that was banned by the EU.

The investigation into Defra was launched after the campaign group ClientEarth submitted a complaint to the Office for Environmental Protection, which was set up after Brexit to replace the EU’s framework for punishing environmental offences by governments in the bloc. On Monday, the OEP announced it would be investigating the emergency authorisation of a neonicotinoid pesticide in 2023 and 2024.

It said: “The investigation is seeking to determine whether there were serious failures to comply with a number of environmental laws in relation to emergency authorisations granted for the use of Cruiser SB on sugar beet seeds.

“In particular, the investigation is considering Defra’s interpretation and application of the precautionary principle and compliance with its nature conservation obligations when it considers granting emergency authorisations.”

The neonicotinoid pesticide Cruiser SB is used on sugar beet and is highly toxic to bees and has the potential to kill off populations of the insect. It is banned in the EU but the UK has provisionally agreed to its emergency use every year since leaving the bloc.

The former environment secretary Michael Gove promised in 2017 that ministers would use Brexit to stop the use of the pesticide. Instead, the EU banned all emergency authorisations of neonicotinoid pesticides while the UK government has allowed its use, one of many ways the UK has diverged from EU environmental policy since Brexit.

Prof Dave Goulson, a bee expert at the University of Sussex, has warned that one teaspoon of the chemical is enough to kill 1.25bn honeybees.

Conservative ministers authorised the pesticide for use this year, against the warnings of scientific advisers. Both the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Expert Committee on Pesticides raised concerns over this year’s emergency authorisation. Neonicotinoid pesticides can stay in the soil for years, and they taint any flowering plant which grows, meaning that bees foraging for nectar from a flower can be poisoned years after treated seeds were planted.

During the general election, the Labour party committed in its manifesto to end the authorisations of the pesticide because of its effect on bees.

Kyle Lischak, of ClientEarth, said: “Failing to take a proper precautionary approach when approving the use of pesticides is threatening our pollinators and the wider environment – and puts England even further off-track from meeting its 2030 biodiversity targets.

“This investigation also sends an important signal to government and other decision-makers: laws that protect nature – such as the habitat regulations – have to go beyond planning decisions and include other activities that could threaten nature.

“And while this investigation is under way, we are calling on the new government to support UK farmers to adopt sustainable methods of pest control that work with nature, rather than putting it at risk – as they are the custodians of so much of England’s natural environment.”

Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link said: “This case will rightly investigate whether proper process was followed in allowing the use of banned pesticides, but if it is successful then the lessons are much wider. Scientific advice on major environmental decisions shouldn’t be swept under the carpet for political or economic expediency. We welcome Labour’s commitment to end the use of emergency authorisations for neonicotinoids, and hope the party will pay heed to the opinions of its expert advisers and the urgent need for ecological action in all its decisions, from toxic chemical use, to planning on land and at sea”.

A Defra spokesperson said: “We are at a crisis point – nature is dying across Britain. This government will change existing policies to ban the use of bee-killing pesticides to protect our vital pollinators.”

A fierce heatwave that shattered records this weekend will again grip much of the US on Monday, with more than 36 million Americans under excessive heat warnings.

The dangerous temperatures caused the death of a motorcyclist in California’s Death Valley. And they posed challenges for firefighters working in sweltering conditions to battle a series of wildfires across the state.

In Santa Barbara county, the Lake fire burned through dry grass, brush and timber over the weekend, prompting evacuations of some rural homes, including the Neverland ranch.

The heat wave came as the global temperature in June hit a record high for the 13th straight month and it marked the 12th straight month that the world was 1.5C (2.7F) warmer than pre-industrial times, the European climate service Copernicus said.

An excessive heat warning, the National Weather Service’s highest alert, was in effect Monday for portions of states including California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Idaho, while parts of the East Coast as well as states including Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi were under heat advisories.

Dozens of locations in the west and pacific north-west tied or broke previous heat records.

A high temperature of 128F (53.3 C) was recorded Saturday and Sunday at Death Valley National Park in eastern California, where a visitor died Saturday from heat exposure and another person was hospitalized, officials said.

The two visitors were part of a group of six motorcyclists riding through the Badwater Basin area amid scorching weather, the park said in a statement.

“While this is a very exciting time to experience potential world record-setting temperatures in Death Valley, we encourage visitors to choose their activities carefully, avoiding prolonged periods of time outside of an air-conditioned vehicle or building when temperatures are this high,” said Mike Reynolds, a park superintendent.

Across the desert in Nevada, Las Vegas on Sunday set a record high of 120F (48.8C).

Triple-digit temperatures were common across Oregon, where several records were toppled, including in Salem, where on Sunday it hit 103F (39.4C), topping the 99F (37.2C) mark set in 1960.

Rare heat advisories were extended even into higher elevations including around Lake Tahoe, on the border of California and Nevada, with the weather service in Reno, Nevada, warning of “major heat risk impacts, even in the mountains”.

More extreme highs are in the near forecast, including possibly 130F (54.4C) around midweek at Furnace Creek, California, in Death Valley. The hottest temperature ever officially recorded on Earth was 134F (56.67C) in July 1913 in Death Valley, though some experts dispute that measurement and say the real record was 130F (54.4C), recorded there in July 2021.

History is long, and short. For many supporters of Israel, history appears to have commenced on 7 October 2023. For me, and for many others steeped in the acid bath of Palestine-Israel, history is a long brine. Conversations with ourselves begin to change in texture. In time, our arguments are prone to spoilage.

As a Palestinian American who has lived in both Gaza and the West Bank and has observed the unfettered encroachment of settlements first-hand, I’ve long been a proponent of a single shared state in Palestine-Israel – an idea that many have rejected as unworkable. Now, as we observe what scholars have described as a genocide in Palestine, the question resolves to whether it’s even thinkable for Israeli Jews and Palestinians to live as fellow citizens in a shared society.

But a two-state outcome is equally hard to envisage – Israeli settlements have made partition impossible.

What is clear is that the Palestinians, who have faced brutality for 100 years, need a resolution. And perversely, the carnage may present a new chance at redirecting history.

The war has sundered the status quo. Israel, a small country, is isolated, perhaps permanently. Mass global anti-war rallies, the international court of justice’s genocide hearings, and the international criminal court applications for arrest warrants – which put Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, in league with Slobodan Milošević – represent meaningful changes.

But they’re not enough. Truly moving forward requires policymakers to accept several basic truths they have largely refused to recognize – the most fundamental preconditions to ending the Palestinian-Israeli nightmare.

Hamas won’t be eliminated

The question of what should happen in the immediate future is clear: we need a permanent ceasefire. Gaza needs to be rebuilt and the Palestinians who live there must be permitted to return home. The territory should be free to conduct trade, its residents able to travel for study or any other reason.

Yet there is little reason to believe that this will be Gaza’s future. All along, Israel has claimed that it seeks the wholesale destruction of Hamas, a goal shared by Biden, who has said the group should be “eliminated”. But as Stephen Walt, an international relations professor at Harvard University, explained, “you’re not going to eliminate Hamas and that fraction of the Palestinian community.”

The latest ceasefire proposal, which falls short of committing Israel to a permanent halt to its activities in Gaza, seems designed to fail. A temporary cessation of hostilities, which will, judging by Israeli statements, be followed by more massacres and death in Gaza, is no ceasefire. And so we are left to consider the likelihood of a protracted Israeli presence in Gaza.

A prolonged reoccupation will see a committed Palestinian insurgency of the kind that Hamas is waging nine months into the carnage. The Israelis, conscripts or reservists with other things to do, are harried and disorganized, lacking political leadership or a vision for the future. That lack of leadership appears to be the main reason Benny Gantz – a centrist by Israeli standards, rightwing by any other – has pulled his party from Netanyahu’s government. The history in Lebanon, where Hezbollah waged a fierce and successful fight against Israeli occupation from 1985 to 2000, is instructive – the Israelis will be bled by the armed resistance if they do not withdraw.

Yet that scenario – a native, grinding insurgency – seems to be willfully ignored in policy discussions about Gaza. Instead, the conversation in Washington and Brussels seems to reject the possibility that Hamas will continue to play a role in Gaza or in the politics of Palestine-Israel generally.

Hopes for a Hamas defeat on the battlefield, followed by political capitulation, are unrealistic – like hoping that Netanyahu’s Likud, Gantz’s Israel Resilience, or Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power party will have no future in the land. As Michael Milshtein, former head of Palestinian affairs in the Israeli military, explained to the Wall Street Journal: “There is no vacuum. Every place that is evacuated by the [Israeli army], Hamas fills it … Right now there is no alternative, other than Hamas.”

Indeed, the group’s battlefield success, measured by its staying power and capacity to continue to inflict meaningful losses on the occupying Israelis, carries portents for any eventual resolution. It’s a lesson the French learned in Algeria when they sought to eliminate the Algerian National Liberation Front, at enormous cost to Algerian civilians. The Americans, for their part, learned in Vietnam that the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam had more staying power than they did, even as more than 2 million civilians were killed in that war. And the Taliban in Afghanistan succeeded in defeating both American and Russian troops decades apart.

Hamas is an indigenous movement in Palestine. It draws support from civilians; its combatants can disappear and find sustenance among other residents of Gaza. Evidence shows Israel’s unbridled assault has caused an increase in support for the Islamist movement among Palestinians, enhancing its resilience.

Polls conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) indicated that in September 2023, Hamas was only supported by 12% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 38% in Gaza. In May of this year, support for Hamas in the West Bank had increased to 41% while in Gaza – where the polling data is less reliable due to the prolonged Israeli assault – the figure remained unchanged at 38%. On average, support for Hamas increased from 22% in September to 40% in May, with a +/-3% margin of error.

It remains the case that many Palestinians view the Islamist parties Hamas and Islamic Jihad as among the only actors committed to their right to self-defense. That right is self-evident to the Palestinians and their supporters, no matter their views of either party. As Hanan Ashrawi, member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and former spokesperson of the Palestinian delegation to the 1991 Madrid peace conference, told me: “People under occupation have the right to defend themselves. It is enshrined under international law.”

Hamas’s assertion of Palestine’s right to self defense – in defiance of Israel, the United States, Britain and Germany – also acts as one of the few points of leverage available to the Palestinians after decades of a failed “peace process”.

Israel’s partisans may argue that the Islamist group has signaled unyielding intent to eliminate Israel through words and actions, particularly through its deadly rampage on 7 October, and that the organization cannot be negotiated with for that reason. The argument fails on several counts. First, its corollary is that Israeli leaders cannot be negotiated with in light of their putatively genocidal actions in Palestine. Yet the Palestinians have indicated a willingness to negotiate with Israel for decades now, and they continue to do so.

Then there is Hamas’s 1988 charter, which called for the destruction of Israel – but was significantly modified in 2017 to express a willingness to pursue a state within Palestine’s 1967 borders.

The group has also repeatedly indicated interest in a long-term ceasefire with Israel, hudna in Arabic, as reported by the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Dag Henrik Tuastad, the report’s author, writes: “The purpose and details of Hamas’s hudna do not appear to differ substantially from the political positions of the [Palestine Liberation Organization] during the Camp David talks in 2000.”

Finally, there is the question of tactics. Both Hamas and Israel – and the Haganah, which preceded Israel’s army – have used terrorism to advance policy goals. But as the Irish Republican Army, which pursued its political program in part through bombings in London, and the African National Congress in South Africa have shown, the only path to eliminating terrorism is through a political agreement. “Governments and insurgents generally negotiate even though they say they never will,” the political scientists Brendan O’Leary and Andrew Silke note in their study of insurgency and terror tactics. Indeed, the Good Friday Agreement, signed in 1998, successfully brought calm to Northern Ireland. The end of apartheid in South Africa brought one chapter of that struggle to a close.

Palestinian unification is essential

The Palestinian national movement is in a state of disarray, hollowed out and fractured by an unending “peace process”. The framework that was supposed to have seen the emergence of a Palestinian state really only compelled the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank to do the work of enforcing Israel’s occupation, even as the apartheid regime metastasized throughout the territory.

The fact of the PA’s control by Israel, and its commitment to protecting occupation forces, is a fundamental obstacle to a meaningful resolution. In every comparable struggle – in Ireland, South Africa, Bosnia and Vietnam – representative national leadership was instrumental in producing an end to the conflict.

Today one may ask: who speaks for the Palestinians? The answer is that no one does. But that wasn’t always true.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a coalition of various Palestinian movements, was founded in Cairo in 1964 to act as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, wherever they may be. Its goals changed over the years: the PLO called initially for a Palestinian state in all of Mandate Palestine, or what is now known as Palestine-Israel. It endorsed the two-state solution as part of the process that preceded the Oslo talks in 1988 after decades of armed struggle.

“The PLO is a reservoir of the Palestinian history of the resistance and the people; it represents the Palestinians as a whole. It embodies an identity and a history of struggle,” Ashrawi, of the Palestinian Legislative Council, explained. Yet the PLO is not fully representative – Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not members.

The Oslo Accords – which were not supported by all members of the PLO – were signed on 13 September 1993. The agreements formally split the representation of the Palestinians: those in exile would continue to be represented by the PLO, but those in the occupied territories would have their interests represented by the newly formed PA, a proto-institution that was, in the most generous interpretation of history, intended to precede a Palestinian national government in the state of Palestine.

Today, the PA is corrupt, led by 88-year-old Mahmoud Abbas, who has succeeded in resisting calls for presidential elections since 2005, when he was elected. Rather than occupying the role of liberation movement, the Abbas PA has become an administrator of paltry favors granted by the occupying authority, Israel. The corruption and impotence have led nearly 90% of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank to desire Abbas’s resignation. In Ashrawi’s view, “we need elections” to reorder the national movement.

Palestinian divisions can be traced in part to the last legislative elections, in 2006, which Hamas won. Fatah, the opposition, attempted a US-backed coup, which failed. Fatah ended up in control of the PA in the West Bank; Hamas administered Gaza. The intervening years have seen repeated efforts by Palestinians to produce a representative unity government come to nothing, in part because of American and Israeli pressure designed to keep the Palestinians fragmented.

The manic, joyful killing in Gaza has united Palestinian society more than at any other time in recent history. The May PCPSR poll found that 79% of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza sought either a “reconciliation or reunification” of Gaza and the West Bank or “the formation of a national unity government” that would be empowered to negotiate with Israel. For her part, Ashrawi has renewed calls for the inclusion of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the PLO. “If we want comprehensive representation, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, everybody should be a part of the PLO. Otherwise it’s not representative,” she said.

Talks to achieve unification are ongoing; China, in an effort to grasp the mantle of leadership from the United States, recently brokered talks among Hamas and Fatah representatives. That unification is essential to a just resolution to the conflict, since only a representative body can negotiate on behalf of all Palestinians.

Jewish Israelis must relinquish their privilege

Western leaders pronounce their faith in the two-state solution at every turn, despite a peace process that has been effectively dead for decades. It’s clear that Zionism – with its focus on the need for Jews to engineer and maintain a numerical majority, with superior rights, in all of Palestine-Israel – is what killed the proposal for two states. The settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem, which are home to 700,000 Jewish Israelis, many of them among the most extreme exponents of Zionism, have made it impossible to imagine a state on that land.

Those of us who supported the one-state solution argued the demographic reality would result in the end of Zionism and equal rights for everyone.

But we struggled for years to make our case. “I long thought the one-state solution was unworkable,” Walt, the international relations professor, said. “But I’m now beginning to wonder if … that turns out to be the only mechanism.” For a long time, equal rights in Palestine-Israel seemed like the only possible way to square geographically mixed populations and an emerging Palestinian majority with a non-expulsionist, non-exterminationist policy.

But one or two states are not the only proposals offered by those seeking to fill the breach. Dahlia Scheindlin, an Israeli political analyst, supports a confederation – a union of countries with a central authority. “I do think Jews have a right to self-determination as a people and that Palestinians have a right to self-determination and those two are interdependent,” she explained.

Ashrawi, the Palestinian politician, lives in Birzeit, a small, historically Christian town, in the occupied West Bank. She is less focused on technical questions, and more on the fundamental principles. “We have to stay united and remain focused on the objective: a free and united Palestine for all Palestinians. We need the right to self-determination,” she said.

“I don’t worry about one state versus two states – the real issue is we have the right to live in freedom and dignity and sovereignty on our own land.”

Ashrawi dismissed the negotiations that have yielded so little for the Palestinians. “Are we going to sit down and work out borders? That’s not the issue now, frankly speaking. We have to assert our rights.”

The Palestinians will remain at war against apartheid and Jewish supremacy for as long as they exist. But what justice for the Palestinians looks like, after so much death, and so much injury, is hard to say.

In an ideal world, one in which 15,000 Palestinian children – an unfathomable number – hadn’t been killed, the war in Palestine would end through true liberation. More than 8,000 Palestinians languishing in Israeli prisons and 120 Israelis trapped in Gaza would be released and permitted to return to their families.

Equal rights in Palestine-Israel would act as the basis for a strong parliamentary democracy, safeguarding the rights of the individual in a pluralistic society. Or, in an alternative future, the confederation promoted by Scheindlin, Palestinians and Israelis would live in a country grounded in “two people’s self-determination, [each claiming] a territorial environment where they feel culturally expressive of who they are”, as she described her vision.

But whatever the configuration, Jewish Israelis must relinquish the extraordinary privilege they’ve secured for themselves in Palestine-Israel. They cannot be counted on to do so without massive external pressure, however. As the journalist Peter Beinart said to me, South Africa didn’t change until the “status quo [became] untenable for the elites”.

The last nine months have changed many of us, making ideas that once seemed attainable feel distant, unreal. It seems reasonable to believe that the horror meted out by Israelis, orders of magnitude larger than the crimes perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October – with the overwhelming support of their society – has been inscribed for ever upon the hearts of many people.

Diana Buttu, a former Oslo negotiator who lives in Haifa, described her physical insecurity, the personal relationships that have curdled, and the casual incitement to genocide by her Jewish neighbors. “Everywhere you go, you see these signs that say ‘Finish them’.”

“When you talk to people about what the army is doing they shrug it off … 15,000 kids killed, and this is the response: ‘Eh, it’s the price.’”

So many young men have posted so many videos of themselves committing crimes of war that they are unavoidable. So many young people – children – have sabotaged efforts to deliver flour to Gaza.

It is impossible to imagine a future in which Palestinians and Israelis live side-by-side in a single state or a confederation without some reckoning. For my own part, I cannot conceive of a future that does not require the reconstruction of the Israeli left in a new form – anti-Zionist, honest about history, aligned with the global movement for Palestinian rights. It is simply the precondition for working together, towards any outcome.

The showy parades in Tel Aviv that preceded October 2023, demanding democracy for Jewish Israelis alone, have nothing to do with Palestinian liberation, and Palestinians regarded them with aloofness or scorn. The vast majority of the families of Israeli soldiers and civilians who are protesting the Netanyahu government are not calling for an end to the genocide, or for Palestinian freedom. There is little common cause there; we do not see our humanity reflected in their eyes. Many Palestinians watched the celebrations that attended the Nuseirat massacre – four Israeli hostages were freed, measured against the murder of nearly three hundred Palestinians – in shock, overwhelmed by feelings of total revulsion.

Yet Palestinians and Israelis are not unique. Rwanda and South Africa, where genocide and apartheid were perpetrated, have sought a return to life through truth and reconciliation commissions, which seek to identify harm and repair it.

As O’Leary, the political scientist, noted to me, this requires, first, a brand-new political order. “The empirical pattern is that a regime that is not defeated does not concede a comprehensive truth commission, followed by legal processes in which state officials are … sentenced.”

And so hope for the future, such as it is, is fixed in a vision that requires the end of Jewish supremacy in Palestine.

In reality, we are light years from truth and reconciliation commissions, a harrowing effort in the best of times. Today we are Rwanda in 1994, bathing still in frothy blood.

The effective ban on onshore windfarms has been dropped by the newly elected Labour government, in news that has delighted environmental and energy experts.

The ban was caused by two footnotes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the rules which govern the building of homes and infrastructure.

These footnotes only applied to onshore wind, no other type of infrastructure, and required such strong proof that there was no opposition from the local community they made building turbines impossible, given there is nearly always some local resistance to any building proposal.

In Labour’s proposed new NPPF, these footnotes have been deleted in their entirety, meaning that onshore wind projects are now on an even footing with all other forms of infrastructure. The change will officially come into force when parliament resumes on 18 July.

The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, announced the change in a speech on Monday, saying she would end the “absurd” ban, arguing that decisions should be “taken nationally, not locally”.

Officials outlined the move in a policy statement, writing: “Delivering our clean power mission will help boost Britain’s energy independence, save money on energy bills, support high-skilled jobs and tackle the climate crisis.

“We are therefore committed to doubling onshore wind energy by 2030. That means immediately removing the de facto ban on onshore wind in England, in place since 2015. We are revising planning policy to place onshore wind on the same footing as other energy development in the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Last September, the then communities secretary, Michael Gove, said the de facto ban would be lifted – as rules put in place by David Cameron in 2015 decreed that a single planning objection could scupper an onshore wind project.

However, the offending paragraphs in the NPPF footnote remained, making building new projects almost impossible. Analysis of the government’s renewable energy planning database found that no applications for new onshore wind projects were submitted after Gove’s announcement.

The end of the ban was promised in Labour election manifesto and trailed by the new energy secretary, Ed Miliband, when he was in opposition, but campaigners were surprised by the speed at which it has been implemented.

Mike Childs, the head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth, said: “By ending the onshore wind ban in England, Labour is making an important stride towards delivering on our climate goals, while also paving the way for lower bills, as renewables produce some of the cheapest and cleanest energy available.

“In April, research by Friends of the Earth found that utilising less than 3% of land in England for onshore wind and solar could produce 13 times more clean energy that now generated – enough to power all households in England twice over. By harnessing the country’s vast renewable power potential, the new government is staking its claim as a global leader in the green energy transition.”

Sam Richards, the chief executive of the pro-growth campaign group Britain Remade and a former environmental adviser to No 10, said: “The only way we are going to see the growth Britain desperately needs is if we make it significantly easier to build the homes and the new sources of clean energy needed to reach net zero.

“During the election Labour promised to fix our outdated and sclerotic planning system to just that, and with this speech the new chancellor is hitting the ground running.

“Lifting the ban on new onshore windfarms in England is something Britain Remade has been campaigning for since we launched, so I am delighted Rachel Reeves has dropped the ban so soon after the election.”

Dr Doug Parr, the Greenpeace chief scientist, added: “As the recent gas price crisis shows, this ban was self-defeating for energy security, costly, and lost opportunities to cut emissions. The end of the ban is well overdue.”

It felt like a deeply symbolic, even cathartic, moment on Saturday lunchtime as, on take-off from Stansted, the pilot carrying the new foreign secretary, David Lammy, banked the government plane with the union jack livery sharply leftwards across the sodden and half-occluded fields of Essex and towards Europe.

For the first of what are likely to be innumerable overseas trips, Lammy had chosen Destination Europe, and Operation Reset. It was intended quite literally to be a flying start as he hurtled from his first cabinet meeting down the M11 and on to a flight to Berlin, Stockholm and Bydgoszcz, close to the pastoral family home of the Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski.

The lightning weekend trip is only the first leg of what may prove to be a long and painful journey reconstructing a relationship with Europe after the eight fractious years of Brexit, albeit a relationship with boundaries. For although Lammy in Berlin said he wanted to draw a line under the Brexit years, Labour remains rigidly committed to staying outside the EU, the single market and the customs union. Britain is returning to Europe, but as a changed country seeking cooperation, not union.

It is a delicate operation, involving complex trade-offs, and it may not work. In Brussels at a time of rising European nationalism, there will be fears that it cannot be perceived to be granting any concessions to a country that fled the EU. In the UK, the Conservatives, anxious for redemption as Boris Johnson has already written, accuse Labour of taking the UK back down the road to EU “serfdom”.

The trip, planned in opposition for weeks in great secrecy but with the knowledge of the outgoing foreign secretary David Cameron, took Lammy to meet what may become three of his most influential European partners: Annalena Baerbock, the German foreign minister; Sikorski; and the Swedish foreign minister, Tobias Billström.

Between the visits, Lammy squeezed in 16 introductory phone calls with EU and world diplomats including Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, and Josep Borrell, the EU foreign affairs chief. Paris would have been another stop-off but for the fact that French politics, in the midst of National Assembly elections, is in what may charitably be described as a state of flux.

It did not escape UK officials that after years as the sick man of Europe, the opportunity arises for the country to suddenly look like an oasis of stability, led by a government with at least four years in power and an impregnable majority.

Lammy aimed to come not just with warm words, but with the outline of a plan for an EU-UK security pact. That plan, carefully hatched in opposition, and in some ways reviving ideas that fell by the wayside in the original Brexit negotiations, is more ambitious and wide-ranging than commonly recognised, since security is being defined by the Lammy team in its broadest sense, to cover not just defence, but the web of issues that make up modern-day security, from the climate crisis to energy, pandemics, cyber, investment strategies and critical minerals.

He came away from his conversations with Sikorski and Baerbock feeling that there was an enthusiasm to form a new cooperation agreement, although exactly how formal that agreement, and whether it has legal elements, are for future discussion. With EU states worrying about what the possible US presidency of Donald Trump might mean for the Nato umbrella and US contributions to the defence of Europe, the return of the British, with their defence expertise, could at least offer a form of reassurance.

Poland, with its high levels of defence spending, Germany, with its response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and Sweden with its newly minted membership of Nato seemed obvious places to start.

In what he conceded was a “tough geopolitical moment”, Lammy said it was important not to confuse disagreements between mature democracies with the threats posed by authoritarian regimes.

He then went into an unscripted warning to China, saying: “I am concerned when I see Iranian drones turning up in Ukraine. I am concerned when I see shells from North Korea being used here on European soil. And of course I’m concerned with the partnership that I see Russia brokering across those authoritarian states. I think that China should be very careful about deepening those partnerships over the coming weeks and months.”

Lammy and his team face a steep learning curve as they navigate the protocols of ensuring that convoys arrive on time, keeping his close protection team near, providing the right diplomatic gifts, thanking the local embassy team, feeding the frequent demands of Foreign Office official social media, and ensuring he is not photographed in the rain, or “doing a Sunak”.

There is little downtime. Ten minutes watching the England v Switzerland Euro 2024 quarter-final with Baerbock was followed by a rush back to the hotel for a briefing on Gibraltar, and then a chance to glimpse England win on penalties, as well as to have a hour with his son who, by chance, was also in Berlin, Interrailing after completing his A-levels.

But Lammy is determined that his European tour is part of a wider UK’s reconnection with the world. In his cavernous office in King Charles Street, hours after being made foreign secretary, he reflected on how, as a descendant of enslaved people, he felt he had a special responsibility to find a new voice for Britain when speaking to the global south.

“These are nations that are just vastly different to where they sat a few years ago. Much of the global south can – we saw this during the vaccine episode – look to us for help. They didn’t get the help then, so they turned to India or China.

“And the truth is that there’s got to be a tonal shift. And we’ve got to recognise that it’s a competitive world.”

It will require a different, less blustering approach. “What I have learned is about the importance of listening, not just preaching,” Lammy said. “Diplomacy is also about listening. And to listen, you have to really hear, and I’m not sure we’ve been good at that over the last few years and we’ve got to get back to it.”

The ferry ride takes just five minutes, crossing the Sound from the island of Tjörn to the smaller, car-free Härön. Red-roofed wooden houses, their walls brightly painted in ochre, white or Swedish red, stand grouped along the shoreline, with rounded bluffs of rock rising behind them. Boats nudge against jetties, places to plunge into the sea after the heat of the sauna.

Smooth outcrops of granite knuckle through the thin soil and, with few garden boundaries here, the island’s wild plants – among them the dusky purple sand leek – mingle with the cultivated. Our path leaves the strand for cow pastures, before we reach boardwalks that brush past citrus-scented bog myrtle. Then the way climbs on to high ground of bare rock, heather and juniper scrub, with multi-stemmed Scots pines, wind-pruned into dynamic shapes.

It is a place of contrasts, a mixture of dry ground and bog, creating varied habitats: vast curving slabs of rock where thin grasses and flowers sprout along the cracks or in hollows; wet places bright with bog cotton and silver lichen; the occasional quiet lochan, cradled in the land, its calm surface holding bog bean and water lilies.

Most of Härön – about 40 miles north-west of Gothenburg – became a nature reserve in 1997, and the last remaining farmstead, called Ängen, is traditionally managed through a cycle of hay-cutting, arable and grazing. The narrow fields that fill a long, thin valley have only ever been enhanced with seaweed or natural fertiliser. Poppies grow among tall cereal crops and the margins are full of wildflowers: agrimony, lady’s bedstraw, St John’s wort and hare’s foot clover. Threatened arable weeds such as corncockle have been planted in the fields and verges using local seed. In the woodland edges, we see rampion and the squat towers of pyramidal bugle.

The hay meadows of Ängen are nearing cutting time, but there are still orchids flowering among the yellow rattle-suppressed grasses. Swallows swoop from their cupped nests in the barn and small skipper butterflies dart between betony and dandelions. It is a place to slow down. Later that night, I am lulled to sleep by the slow slap of water through an open window.

Country diary is on Twitter at @gdncountrydiary