I’M not sure about coronation quiche. It’s a spinach thing really. However, in all other respects I’m in full coronation mode. The King has an incredibly tough act to follow but, with Queen Camilla at his side, he has made a very strong start. God Save The King!

Much of the public attention on migration is focussed on the Channel. Persecution and displacement of people generates strong feelings of sympathy and it’s also hard to condemn those simply seeking a better life in a richer country.

But the actions of unscrupulous operators are unacceptable and we must stop economically-motivated illegal crossings.

The Illegal Migration Bill is meant to deal humanely with a migration crisis that concerns a huge number of our constituents.

The UK has taken in 480,000 asylum seekers fleeing brutality and political oppression around the world since 2015. Having led the international community in frustrating Putin’s subjugation of Ukraine, it would be a contradiction of our values and character to refuse help to the victims of Russia’s revanchist imperialism.

Illegal migration, however, comes at a high price. Many are not fleeing violence or tyranny but come from safe countries like Albania via other safe countries and then make dubious legal claims to remain here. That has consequences for genuinely oppressed people and for others who need help.

Sudan will likely mean a further call on our aid budget. Since 2016, it has increasingly been tapped to house migrants in the UK. That is money that should be spent overseas, helping those in dire need.

Balancing the books as we recover from the pandemic has already obliged a temporary reduction in aid from 0.7% GDP to 0.5%. The budget simply cannot bear more strains.

READ MORE: POLITICS COLUMN: ‘Lib Dems have moved on from coalition chaos’

Clamping down on illegal migration is necessary to secure the long-term sustainability of our asylum system and to support those fleeing unsafe countries.

The Illegal Migration Bill is designed to do that.

Those carping from the sidelines should either present credible alternatives or explain why they think the status quo is acceptable.

Food inflation is clear, even to people like me who try to minimise exposure to shopping of any kind.

It may be lower than elsewhere in Europe and food prices here tend to be a bit lower.

However, it’s difficult to avoid the suspicion that big supermarkets are passing on pandemic, energy and Putin-related costs to consumers with a little extra added on.

That’s reflected in their profits. If so, some form of targeted taxation may be appropriate at a time of hardship for many and mounting inflation for all. Perhaps the prospect of paying more in corporate taxes will concentrate the minds of supermarket bosses as they chalk up their prices.