Australia’s centre-left prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has won a second term with a crushing victory over the opposition, whose rightwing leader, Peter Dutton, failed to brush off comparisons with Donald Trump and ended up losing his own seat.

Albanese’s Labor party scored an unexpectedly comfortable win on Saturday, after a five-week election campaign dominated by the cost of living and global economic uncertainty.

At the turn of the year, Labor was struggling in the polls, but Dutton ran a campaign derided by commentators as one of the worst in Australian political history, and the former police detective struggled to clearly dissociate himself from some Trump-like rhetoric and policies.

Albanese, 62, had pitched himself as a steady hand to guide Australia through a period of global turbulence turbocharged by Trump’s tariff war. He becomes the first Australian prime minister to serve consecutive terms since 2004.

With counting continuing into Sunday morning, Labor was projected to win comfortably more than 76 of the 150 lower house seats needed to form a majority government, with an increased share of votes bucking a recent trend against the two major parties.

Addressing the party faithful in Sydney, Albanese said voters had chosen Australian values, including “fairness, aspiration and opportunity for all”.

“Australians have voted for a future that holds true to these values, a future built on everything that brings us together as Australians, and everything that sets our nation apart from the world,” he said.

In an apparent reference to Trump’s policies, Albanese said he would “choose the Australian way”.

“We do not need to beg or borrow or copy from anywhere else. We do not seek our inspiration from overseas. We find it right here in our values and in our people,” he said.

Labor was certain to add to the 77 seats it held going into the election, with the opposition Liberal/National Coalition projected to receive its lowest ever national vote and to lose further seats.

In a six-minute concession speech, Dutton accepted “full responsibility” for the party’s wipeout, which included losing his own seat, and said that the party had unfortunately been “defined by our opponents in this election”.

“It’s not our night, as I point out, and there are good members, good candidates, who have lost their seats or their ambition, and I’m sorry for that … we have an amazing party, and we’ll rebuild.”

The Australian conservative party’s loss mirrored that of the recent election in Canada where the centre-left Liberal party won a fourth-term despite being well behind in the polls in the leadup to the election.

Like Dutton, Canada’s Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, lost the seat he had held since 2004 in an election dominated by the impact of Trump’s presidency.

Meanwhile, most if not all of the inner-city “teal” independents elected at the previous poll in 2022 seemed certain to retain their seats, with several other independents, some in regional areas, having a good chance of adding to their number.

However, it was a disappointing night for the Greens, who were projected to lose two of the three Brisbane seats they sensationally won in 2022, even as their national vote remained static at around 13%. Even the apparently safe Melbourne seat of their leader, Adam Bandt, seemed in a certain amount of jeopardy.

Dutton was first elected in 2001 and is one of his party’s most senior members. He has held a number of ministerial positions, including defence and immigration, since 2013.

He had consistently led in the national polls since the end of 2023, but the US’s decision to place tariffs on Australian exports made associations with Trump detrimental to the opposition party’s brand.

The opposition leader avoided mentioning the US president during the election campaign, even as some of his senior colleagues referred to Trump’s slogans at political rallies.

Months before the campaign officially kicked off, Dutton had announced a government efficiency unit to scale back “waste”, mirroring the Elon Musk-led so-called “department of government efficiency” in the US.

The opposition’s Indigenous affairs spokesperson, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who used Trump’s slogan during the campaign, accused the media of “slinging mud” and “smearing” the party for making links to the US president.

“Donald Trump doesn’t own those four words,” the senator said on ABC, referring to the Make Australia Great Again slogan she used.

Counting to determine the final shape of the House of Representatives and the Senate (the upper house) will take several days, if not weeks in the case of a few seats.

Voting is compulsory in Australia and is based on a preferential voting system. Voters number candidates in order of their preferences for both houses.

The rise of independent challengers has complicated the counting process, with complex preference flows requiring more time to determine the final two candidates.

Australia has had six different prime ministers in two decades after a series of leadership changes amid internal politics.

Just as Australians were returning from the calm of summer holidays, Labor and the Coalition both held their breath as Donald Trump took the presidential oath of office in Washington.

With a federal election year under way and the Albanese government desperate to restart Labor’s flagging political prospects, Trump’s victory had emboldened conservatives in the Coalition and rightwing minor parties. Along with sections of the Australia media, they pushed for a version of Trump’s unapologetic politics here.

Sensing a shift to the right across the electorate, Peter Dutton and the Coalition finalised policies to slash the federal public service and root out “woke” ideology in schools and social policy. They fine-tuned messages about the Indigenous welcome to country and accused Labor of dangerous overreach in the transition to renewable energy.

• Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter

But, despite predictions of an inevitable slide into minority for Labor, Anthony Albanese’s remarkable election victory showed voters aren’t interested in appeals to the fringes. Instead, Australians were eager to reward a focus on the mainstream.

For months, Labor’s national secretary, Paul Erickson, had been building an election campaign around cost-of-living assistance and better Medicare services, encouraging Albanese to talk up urgent care medical clinics and cheaper childcare and Tafe courses.

While the Coalition sought to demonise public servants supposedly slacking off in Canberra and struggled to explain Dutton’s plan to build seven nuclear power plants, Labor smashed them for voting against household payments and tax cuts announced in the March budget. The unpopular work from home policy, which led too many voters to believe their own workplace flexibility was under threat, will be remembered as one of the great stinkers of Australian election campaigning.

Like John Howard before him, the times look like they suit Albanese. Few leaders will get as lucky, in the form of a truly terrible opposition campaign.

But his experience showed as well. Trump’s “liberation day” tariffs announcement had loomed as a risk to Albanese’s reelection bid, but he successfully managed the hit, criticising Trump’s plans and pledging to negotiate a better deal for exporters once he was back in The Lodge.

As Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency slashed and burned, Labor played havoc with Dutton’s approval rating, deriding him as “Dogey Dutton” and accusing the Liberals of harbouring even more radical ideas. The now former member for Dickson wasn’t helped by frontbencher Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and her promise to “make Australia great again.”

Like the undecided voter who asked Albanese and Dutton how they would protect Australia from Trump’s erratic decision-making in the first leaders’ debate on 10 April, fear of an unstable world was front-of-mind around the country.

Albanese successfully argued calm leadership was Australia’s best approach to the unpredictability the US president has cultivated as his personal calling card. His unflashy approach to the job might be regarded as a key asset.

Albanese’s victory speech alluded to Dutton’s flirtation with the Maga approach. He told the Labor faithful his government would continue to choose an Australian way forward. One of his biggest cheers came as he promised to continue to recognise Indigenous heritage and leadership every day in the job.

The politics of division might be front of mind for the Coalition as they pick up the pieces. Queensland senator James McGrath, hardly a moderate in the joint party room, had the unenviable task of explaining the historic loss on the ABC’s broadcast.

He warned the Coalition should be firmly in the centre-right, and avoid importing division and distrust. “We must resist that path [and] focus on where middle Australia is,” he said.

That’s where the voters are too. Just ask Labor.

Germany’s foreign ministry has hit back at the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, following his criticism of Germany’s decision to label the far-right Alternative für Deutschland party as a “confirmed rightwing extremist group”.

On Thursday, Rubio took to X and wrote: “Germany just gave its spy agency new powers to surveil the opposition. That’s not democracy – it’s tyranny in disguise. What is truly extremist is not the popular AfD – which took second in the recent election – but rather the establishment’s deadly open border immigration policies that the AfD opposes.”

Rubio went on to say: “Germany should reverse course.”

In a response on X, the German foreign ministry pushed back against the US secretary of state, saying: “This is democracy. This decision is the result of a thorough & independent investigation to protect our Constitution & the rule of law. It is independent courts that will have the final say. We have learnt from our history that rightwing extremism needs to be stopped.”

Germany’s response to Rubio comes after its domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), designated the AfD as a “confirmed rightwing extremist” force on Friday.

The BfV’s decision marks a step up from its previous designation of the country’s anti-immigrant, pro-Kremlin and largest opposition party as a “suspected” threat to Germany’s democratic order. According to the BfV, the AfD’s xenophobic stances based on an “ethnic-ancestry-based understanding” of German identity are “incompatible with the free democratic basic order” as indicated by the country’s constitution.

The spy agency added that the AfD “aims to exclude certain population groups from equal participation in society, to subject them to unconstitutional unequal treatment and thus to assign them a legally devalued status”.

It also said: “This exclusionary understanding of the people is the starting point and ideological basis for ongoing agitation against certain individuals or groups of people, through which they are defamed and despised indiscriminately and irrational fears and rejection are stirred up.”

During February’s general election in Germany, which was rocked by extensive US interference including public votes of confidence by staunch AfD supporters such as Elon Musk and JD Vance, the AfD amassed approximately 21% of the vote, finishing second.

The far-right party’s rise to popularity in Germany has come as a result of a broader wave of growing rightwing extremism across Europe.

At the same time, public figures in the US have openly made remarks or gestures that are sympathetic to nazism, despite the Trump administration’s sweeping crackdown on antisemitism across the country – a move which has been called into question by higher education institutions and Jewish senators, who accuse Trump of targeting free speech.

Musk, who had been given the designation of a “special government employee” by the Trump administration, made back-to-back apparent fascist salutes during the president’s inauguration rally earlier this year.

Last month, during a Capitol Hill hearing that sought to explore supposed government censorship under Joe Biden, Republican representative Keith Self quoted Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister under Adolf Hitler.

“A direct quote from Joseph Goebbels: ‘It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion,’ and I think that may be what we’re discussing here,” he said.

The decision by Germany’s domestic spy agency to call the far-right Alternative für Deutschland party “extremist” amounts to the starkest move yet by authorities to try to stop the advance of the populist political force.

Friday’s classification by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) will open up the possibility for the security services to monitor the country’s largest opposition party, including by recruiting people to inform against it and enabling interception of its communications.

AfD leaders denounced it as a “blow against democracy”, and nothing short of an attempt to disfranchise the more than 10 million people who voted for it in February’s election.

Its leaders vowed to take legal action against what they called “defamatory” and “politically motivated attacks”.

According to the experts who compiled the BfV’s 1,100-page report, the AfD is “a racist and anti-Muslim organisation”, which, through its strict, ethnically and ancestrally defined version of who is German and who is not, “deprecates whole sections of the population in Germany and infringes their human dignity”.

It has also “incited irrational fears and hostility” in society, steering the blame towards individuals and groups, the report said.

In itself, the step is not much of a surprise, although the timing is. The outgoing interior minister, Nancy Faeser, made the bombshell announcement on what is effectively her last day in office.

Faeser said “there was no political influence on the assessment”, despite the AfD’s insistence to the contrary. But the move puts the incoming conservative-led government of Friedrich Merz under great pressure, as well as Faeser’s Social Democrat colleagues, who will be the junior partners in the new coalition that gets to work next Tuesday.

On the back of the decision, Merz will now be responsible – on top of the myriad other challenges in his in-tray – for deciding whether and how to ban the AfD, a decision that will involve the most precarious of political tightrope walks.

Migration, Ukraine, Trump and an ailing economy are among the burgeoning issues that he will also have to tackle with urgency. The growing mood of dissatisfaction over these and other issues, exacerbated by the six months of political deadlock that followed the premature collapse of the previous government – which induced an added layer of nationwide ennui – has already caused the AfD to creep up in the polls.

Having won second place in February’s election – doubling its previous result and making it the strongest opposition party, second only to the conservative CDU/CSU – in recent days the AfD has come top of the polls for the first time ever.

The ruling by the BfV is unlikely to put people off supporting the AfD.

Finding a way to reduce the AfD has been at top of the agenda among all of the political parties since it emerged as a protest force of professors and academics in 2013 on the back of anger over the euro bailouts. The challenge has only grown in importance, as the populists – morphing from anti-euro to anti-migrant over time – have grown their success at the ballot box.

Merz would like to be seen as a pragmatic rationalist, aiming to reduce the AfD to what he refers to as the “marginal phenomenon” it once was by addressing the nation’s concerns, taking the wind out of the sails of the AfD’s successful modus operandi of inciting fear and insecurity.

Tackling “irregular” immigration is therefore at the top of his domestic agenda, as he seeks to address the topic viewed as having added the most fuel to the AfD’s fire.

But many others believe it is too late for that, arguing that an extremist classification, followed by a ban, would be the only way to stop the flourishing party.

Others say such a move would be in grave danger of backfiring, arguing that the AfD would turn such a branding by the state into its own “seal of approval”, which would serve to enhance its already strong sense of victimhood or martyrdom.

Merz’s party, the Christian Democratic Union, has been torn over how to deal with the AfD. Merz tacitly cooperated with the party earlier this year – despite insisting he would not – to push migration policies through parliament. And on the local level, his party and the AfD have cooperated on issues such as a ruling that the German flag should be hoisted in schools.

Jens Spahn, Merz’s close ally, recently prompted scorn by suggesting the AfD should be treated as a “normal opposition party”, arguing that excluding the party from parliamentary procedures only boosted its popularity.

Those who reject that approach say Friday’s ruling will now give them more justification to block the party at every opportunity – but they argue that this will only work if a cross-party consensus prevails.

• Ukraine has destroyed a Russian Su-30 fighter jet using a missile fired from a seaborne drone, according to Ukraine’s military intelligence agency, in what it said was the world’s first downing of a combat plane by a maritime drone. The GUR’s statement on social media on Saturday said the fighter had been shot down by a military intelligence unit called Group 13 on Friday over waters near Novorossiisk, a major Russian port city on the Black Sea. The Russian defence ministry did not comment on the Ukrainian claim, but an authoritative Russian blogger believed to be close to the ministry said the jet had been shot down. “The pilots ejected and were picked up by civilian sailors,” the blogger, who goes by the name Rybar, said on Telegram. Meanwhile, the mayor of Novorossiisk declared a state of emergency on Saturday after local authorities said a Ukrainian drone attack had damaged a grain terminal and several residential buildings, injuring five people.

• Volodymyr Zelenskyy has dismissed a three-day truce ordered by Vladimir Putin as theatrics but said Kyiv was ready for a full ceasefire. “This is more of a theatrical performance on his part, because in two or three days it is impossible to develop a plan for the next steps to end the war,” the Ukrainian president said on Friday in remarks embargoed until Saturday. Moscow claimed the truce, set to coincide with its second world war commemorations on 9 May, was aimed at testing Kyiv’s “readiness” for long-term peace. Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, said on Saturday that nobody could guarantee Kyiv would survive to see 10 May if Ukraine attacked Moscow during the 9 May celebrations. Zelenskyy said Ukraine would not be “playing games to create a pleasant atmosphere to allow for Putin’s exit from isolation on 9 May”. The Kremlin has rejected calls by Kyiv and Washington for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire.

• A Russian overnight drone attack on Kyiv damaged several residential buildings and set cars on fire throughout the city, the military and officials of the Ukrainian capital said on Sunday. Falling debris from destroyed drones sparked fires at residential buildings in Kyiv’s Obolonskyi and Sviatoshynskyi districts, the head of Kyiv’s military administration said on social media. Timur Tkachenko added that several cars throughout the city also caught fire from falling drone debris. The mayor, Vitali Klitschko, said on Telegram that medics were called to the Sviatoshynskyi district, west of the city centre, where they provided assistance. Kyiv, its surrounding region and the eastern half of Ukraine were under air raid alerts for about an hour, starting soon after midnight on Sunday local time (2100 GMT).

• Russian shelling killed two people in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk region on Saturday, while a drone strike on the southern Ukrainian city of Kherson left one other person dead, regional officials said. In the central region of Cherkasy, a Russian drone attack late on Saturday sparked several fires, said the governor, Ihor Taburets. There were injuries, according to preliminary information.

Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has warned protesters in breakaway northern Cyprus not “to sow seeds of hatred” amid mounting discord over Ankara’s perceived attempts to Islamise one of the world’s most secular Muslim societies.

In a whirlwind visit to the Turkish-occupied territory on Saturday the leader had tough words for Turkish Cypriots who have stepped up demonstrations against policies he openly endorses, not least a controversial law allowing headscarves to be worn in schools.

“Those who try to disrupt our brotherhood, to create a rift between us, and to sow the seeds of hatred … will not be successful,” he said as he inaugurated a new presidential residence and parliament in the self-styled state.

Later, as he addressed a technology festival, he went further, telling trade unions that opposed the measure: “If you try to mess with our girls’ headscarves in the Turkish republic of northern Cyprus, I am sorry, you will find us against you.”

On Friday thousands of Turkish Cypriots took to the streets of Nicosia, the country’s war-split capital, chanting “hands off our land” as they denounced the legislation.

In a speech before a crowd metres away from Turkey’s embassy compound, Selma Eylem, who heads the Cyprus Turkish secondary education teachers’ trade union, said the regulation was tantamount to imposing political Islam on a society that not only prided itself on its secular identity but inherently secular way of life.

“We say, once again, to the representatives of the AKP [Erdoğan’s Islamist-rooted party]: Keep your hands off our children and keep your hands off our society.”

Erdoğan had hoped to use the trip to showcase Ankara’s continuing support for a community that it had in 1974 sought to rescue when Turkish troops were ordered to invade Cyprus, seizing its northern third.

The military operation had followed a rightwing, Athens-backed coup aimed at uniting the island with Greece. In the more than 50 years that have elapsed, the territory, which unilaterally declared independence in 1983, has been recognised by no other country but Turkey.

Ahead of his visit officials had said that Erdoğan’s focus would be on the opening of the big government complex, financed by Ankara with the aim of promoting international acceptance for the isolated entity.

On Saturday the Turkish president insisted that in the wake of decades of failed peace talks between Greek and Turkish Cypriots only “a two-state solution” could be discussed to resolve the west’s longest running diplomatic dispute.

“The two-state solution is the joint vision of Turkey and northern Cyprus,” he said. “Any new negotiation process must be between two sovereign states.”

Friday’s demonstration, which followed almost daily protests over the hijab law, was organised by more than 100 trade unions and civil societies many of which still advocate the island’s reunification as a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation.

“Partly because of Kemalism but also because of eighty-two years of British colonial rule, Turkish Cypriots are by far the most secular Muslims in the world,” said Hubert Faustmann, professor of history and political science at the University of Nicosia in the internationally recognised south.

For Turkish Cypriots who have long opposed Ankara’s ever-expanding influence in the north, the regulation, he said, was further proof of the leader’s determination to not only erode long-held secular traditions but ultimately alter their own identity.

“What we are witnessing is a cultural clash,” Faustmann said. “The legislation on headscarves is seen as part of a package of continuous attempts by Erdoğan to unwind the secular character of the community.”

With the backlash showing no sign of abating, Turkish Cypriots appear determined to have the measure repealed – even if it has been vigorously defended by the community’s leader, Ersin Tatar, a close Erdoğan ally who argues the law protects students from discrimination.

“If we are to save ourselves we have to continue this struggle,” said Şener Elcil, a veteran former trade unionist.

Increasingly, he lamented, Turkish Cypriots had been made to feel like a minority “in our own land” as a result of hundreds of thousands of mainland settlers moving to the north.

“Religion was never a point of division on this island but after years of building mosques that Turkish Cypriots don’t even go to, they want to make it one in our schools,” he added. “Now, more than ever, we need to stand up to Erdoğan and have our voices heard.”

A police training expert testifying on Saturday as a defense witness in the trial of three former Memphis officers charged in the fatal beating of Tyre Nichols acknowledged that kicks and punches to Nichols’s head had been unnecessary and excessive.

Don Cameron took the stand on the sixth day of the trial of Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley and Justin Smith, who have pleaded not guilty to state charges including second-degree murder. They already face the prospect of years in prison after they were convicted of federal charges last year.

Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man, fled a January 2023 traffic stop after he was yanked out of his car, pepper-sprayed and hit with a stun gun. Five officers who are also Black caught up with him and punched, kicked and hit Nichols with a police baton, struggling to handcuff him as he called out for his mother near his home.

Footage of the beating captured by a police camera also showed the officers milling about, talking and laughing as Nichols struggled. His death led to nationwide protests, calls for police reforms in the US and intense scrutiny of police in Memphis, a majority-Black city.

The officers are charged with second-degree murder, aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, official misconduct and official oppression. Prosecutors have argued that the officers used excessive force in trying to handcuff Nichols. The officers also had a duty to intervene and stop the beating and tell medical personnel that Nichols had been struck in the head, but they failed to do so, prosecutors say.

Former Memphis officers Desmond Mills Jr and Emmitt Martin also were charged in the case. They have agreed to plead guilty to the state charges and are not standing trial. They also pleaded guilty in federal court, where sentencing for all five officers is pending.

Defense attorneys have sought to chip away at accusations that the officers used unnecessary force to subdue Nichols. They have argued that Nichols was actively resisting arrest by running away and failing to give his hands to officers so that he could be handcuffed. They also have argued that their use of force complied with police department policies.

Cameron was called to the stand by the defense lawyer for Haley, who was at the traffic stop and arrived at the location of the beating after Martin had kicked and punched Nichols in the head as Nichols was being held by Smith and Bean.

Cameron said Nichols had not yet been handcuffed and Haley used proper force in kicking Nichols once in the arm. The veteran police trainer said Haley kicked Nichols in order to facilitate the handcuffing of Nichols by the other officers.

However, under cross-examination by prosecutor Paul Hagerman, Cameron acknowledged that the punches and kicks by Martin to Nichols’ head had been unnecessary, excessive and an example of deadly force. Officers who saw those head blows had had a duty to intervene and stop the beating at that point, Cameron said.

The prosecutor also asked Cameron about Haley’s comment to “beat that man” as he got out of his car and approached Nichols. Cameron said he believed Haley made the comment in order to get Nichols to comply with being handcuffed after Nichols repeatedly ignored expletive-laced orders to do so.

Mills, who hit Nichols three times with a police baton, testified on Tuesday that he regrets his failure to stop the beating, which led to Nichols’s death three days later from blunt-force trauma. Dr Marco Ross, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, testified on Wednesday that Nichols had suffered tears and bleeding in the brain.

The trial comes months after the US justice department said in December that a 17-month investigation found that the Memphis police department uses excessive force and discriminates against Black people.

A police training expert testifying on Saturday as a defense witness in the trial of three former Memphis officers charged in the fatal beating of Tyre Nichols acknowledged that kicks and punches to Nichols’s head had been unnecessary and excessive.

Don Cameron took the stand on the sixth day of the trial of Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley and Justin Smith, who have pleaded not guilty to state charges including second-degree murder. They already face the prospect of years in prison after they were convicted of federal charges last year.

Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man, fled a January 2023 traffic stop after he was yanked out of his car, pepper-sprayed and hit with a stun gun. Five officers who are also Black caught up with him and punched, kicked and hit Nichols with a police baton, struggling to handcuff him as he called out for his mother near his home.

Footage of the beating captured by a police camera also showed the officers milling about, talking and laughing as Nichols struggled. His death led to nationwide protests, calls for police reforms in the US and intense scrutiny of police in Memphis, a majority-Black city.

The officers are charged with second-degree murder, aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, official misconduct and official oppression. Prosecutors have argued that the officers used excessive force in trying to handcuff Nichols. The officers also had a duty to intervene and stop the beating and tell medical personnel that Nichols had been struck in the head, but they failed to do so, prosecutors say.

Former Memphis officers Desmond Mills Jr and Emmitt Martin also were charged in the case. They have agreed to plead guilty to the state charges and are not standing trial. They also pleaded guilty in federal court, where sentencing for all five officers is pending.

Defense attorneys have sought to chip away at accusations that the officers used unnecessary force to subdue Nichols. They have argued that Nichols was actively resisting arrest by running away and failing to give his hands to officers so that he could be handcuffed. They also have argued that their use of force complied with police department policies.

Cameron was called to the stand by the defense lawyer for Haley, who was at the traffic stop and arrived at the location of the beating after Martin had kicked and punched Nichols in the head as Nichols was being held by Smith and Bean.

Cameron said Nichols had not yet been handcuffed and Haley used proper force in kicking Nichols once in the arm. The veteran police trainer said Haley kicked Nichols in order to facilitate the handcuffing of Nichols by the other officers.

However, under cross-examination by prosecutor Paul Hagerman, Cameron acknowledged that the punches and kicks by Martin to Nichols’ head had been unnecessary, excessive and an example of deadly force. Officers who saw those head blows had had a duty to intervene and stop the beating at that point, Cameron said.

The prosecutor also asked Cameron about Haley’s comment to “beat that man” as he got out of his car and approached Nichols. Cameron said he believed Haley made the comment in order to get Nichols to comply with being handcuffed after Nichols repeatedly ignored expletive-laced orders to do so.

Mills, who hit Nichols three times with a police baton, testified on Tuesday that he regrets his failure to stop the beating, which led to Nichols’s death three days later from blunt-force trauma. Dr Marco Ross, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, testified on Wednesday that Nichols had suffered tears and bleeding in the brain.

The trial comes months after the US justice department said in December that a 17-month investigation found that the Memphis police department uses excessive force and discriminates against Black people.

Singapore’s ruling party has notched a resounding win in general elections, official results have shown, giving the prime minister, Lawrence Wong, the clear mandate he sought from voters.

Wong’s long-ruling People’s Action party crossed the threshold of 49 seats early on Sunday to form a majority government in the wealthy city-state’s 97-seat unicameral legislature, with sample counts earlier showing the PAP winning all but 10 seats.

“We are grateful once again for your strong mandate, and we will honour it,” a broadly smiling Wong said shortly after winning his ward, thanking supporters gathered at Yio Chu Kang stadium.

Wong was facing his first major test against a rejuvenated opposition and had urged voters to offer him a strong show of support as he navigates the trade-oriented nation through global economic uncertainties brought by US tariffs.

The PAP, which has steered the south-east Asian country to prosperity while being criticised for suppressing dissent, was always expected to easily retain a clear majority in the legislature.

However, its dominance has been increasingly challenged by a more vocal electorate over the years.

Popular after leading Singapore’s Covid task force, Wong took over last year from his predecessor Lee Hsien Loong, the son of founding premier Lee Kuan Yew who ruled the island state after its bitter breakup with Malaysia in 1965.

Wong had warned Singapore would be hit hard if the US president, Donald Trump, went ahead with the tariffs he announced and then paused for most countries, and that it needed to stay open and competitive to counter their effects.

He has also said the ructions caused could require a major restructuring of Singapore’s economy.

“The intense campaigning by PM Lawrence Wong and former PM Lee Hsien Loong in the hot seats must have helped a lot and the fear of Trump’s tariffs must have worried voters as well,” political observer and veteran former editor PN Balji told AFP.

The overwhelming PAP majority has become a norm in Singapore’s political landscape.

But in the runup to the latest polls, the PAP had faced a series of controversies.

Lee Hsien Loong is locked in a bitter feud with his brother Lee Hsien Yang, who vehemently supports the opposition and who has sought political asylum in Britain.

The long-running family row centres on allegations made by Lee Hsien Yang that his brother is seeking to block the demolition of a family bungalow to capitalise on Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy – something he has denied.

Last year, former transport minister S Iswaran was thrown in jail for graft, and in 2023 the parliament speaker and a lawmaker resigned over an “inappropriate” affair.

At the same time, younger voters showed themselves to be increasingly receptive to alternative political voices.

One voter told AFP she had been impressed by “refreshing and exciting” new candidates from across the political spectrum.

“Whether or not they get elected, I hope we see and hear more of them, and get to know them better,” said 40-year-old Shi’ai Liang.

In 2020, the country’s largest opposition group, the Workers’ party (WP), made historic gains, winning 10 of the 93 seats at stake – a significant jump from its previously held four seats.

The WP – which has become politically slicker – had been hoping to build on that momentum with a slate of charismatic candidates, including a top lawyer.

The party pulled in massive crowds at its rallies during the campaign, just like in previous elections, but those big numbers have seldom translated into electoral wins in the past.

Campaigning on cost of living issues, WP candidates said more opposition MPs were needed to deprive the PAP of a political “blank cheque” to do whatever it wants.

The PAP, however, pointed to the billions of Singapore dollars it has spent in helping citizens cope with rising costs, including via cash handouts and grocery vouchers.

It was three weeks after Christmas when the bombshell letter arrived. Guy Shahar and his wife, Oksana, looked at each other in stunned disbelief.

They had followed the Guardian’s investigation into the carer’s allowance scandal that has left thousands of families with crippling debts and criminal records. Not once did they think they would join them.

“Important,” it read in big bold type. “You have been paid more carer’s allowance than you are entitled to. You now need to pay this money back”.

The sum being demanded by the government was staggering: £10,180.45.

“It just didn’t seem real,” said Guy, 53. “It was so surreal and outrageous we assumed there must have been some sort of mistake”.

There was no mistake. The family, from Feltham in west London, had unwittingly breached the strict earnings limit that has left hundreds of thousands of carers paying back huge sums to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in a saga that has been compared to the Post Office scandal.

Oksana, 53, had overstepped the earnings limit by just £1.92 a week on average while juggling caring for their son Daniel, 15, who has autism, with part-time roles as a school dinner lady and a zero-hours contract at Sports Direct.

In some weeks, she was paid just 38p more than the threshold – but for that tiny infraction she is being forced to repay £64.60 each time, the rate of carer’s allowance at the time.

Unpaid carers are allowed to work as long as their earnings do not breach the strictly enforced weekly threshold, which is £196. If their income exceeds this limit, even by as little as 1p, they must repay the whole week of carer’s allowance – meaning a breach of even 1p would trigger a fine of £83.30.

This so-called “cliff-edge” approach has been widely condemned as “cruel and nonsensical” and “perverse” after a Guardian investigation exposed how scores of unpaid carers had been caught in the trap, leaving many saddled with five-figure debts and others with criminal convictions.

As of February, nearly 100,000 carers across the UK were repaying sums as high as £20,000 after breaching earnings rules, according to the latest official figures.

A Guardian analysis of five years of Oksana’s earnings show that on average she was paid less than the DWP’s strict threshold for three of those years. In another year, her earnings exceeded the limit by an average of just 83p a week – but for this infraction they must repay £1,938 for the year.

Across the whole five-year period, she earned a total of £505 more than the rules allow – an average of £1.92 a week. Yet instead of repaying £505, the DWP is demanding £10,130.45 – plus a £50 “civil penalty”.

“It will devastate us financially,” said Guy, who founded the charity Transforming Autism. “It just seems so unfair that it’s not even real. It just feels like this actually can’t go through. In any sort of ethical world, this would not happen.”

The well-documented failure of the DWP to alert carers immediately to these overpayments meant that instead of being notified in 2018, when they first began, the Shahars were not told until January – nearly seven years later.

This meant they unknowingly accrued debt until 2023, when they stopped receiving carer’s allowance after Shahar notified the DWP that she had been able to increase her hours at Sports Direct.

The DWP’s top official, Peter Schofield, promised MPs in 2019 to end the delays that have left scores of carers incurring enormous debts by accident – yet six years later the failure is continuing.

“They never alerted us – not even once,” said Guy. “They let it build up and then more than six years later they’re slapping this enormous fine on us. I feel really let down by the system.”

The DWP is supposed to consider a carer’s average earnings when deciding whether they have broken the rules. However, the way officials do this is inconsistent.

In Oksana’s case, they punished her on the basis of her individual weekly pay rather than her average earnings despite this approach being criticised as unfair by tribunal judges.

“It’s like it’s set up to be a booby-trapped benefits system. It’s inhumane,” said Shahar. “It traps families into long-term debt, anxiety and mental health issues and leaving us much worse off rather than better off to look after the people we’re supposed to be caring for.”

Liz Kendall, the welfare secretary, ordered an independent inquiry into carer’s allowance last year after the Guardian’s investigation. The review, by the former Disability Rights UK chief executive Liz Sayce, is due to report within weeks.

Earlier this month the DWP said it was boosting staff numbers in an attempt to clear the huge backlog of thousands of unpaid carers who have unwittingly exceeded the earning limit – and will almost certainly now be punished.

The family appealed against the £10,000 fine but it was rejected by the DWP. They are now awaiting the outcome of a second challenge.

Guy said the government’s “unfair persecution” had left them distressed and devastated: “It was like the whole foundation of the life that we’d created, which is a very simple life and it’s on fragile foundations anyway – it’s like those foundations were just being taken away. And they’re being taken away by people who’d been telling us all along that they were there to support us”.

Helen Walker, the chief executive of Carers UK, urged the DWP to write off debts in cases like the Shahars’ – and said the case highlighted the need for wide-ranging reform.

“I’m saddened and concerned by the fact that we’re still hearing of fresh instances of those, like Guy and his family, who have fallen foul of an inflexible and unfair system,” she said. “This is a clear demonstration of why we need to see a better alternative to the current ‘cliff-edge’.”

A DWP spokesperson said: “We have paused the recovery of Mrs Shahar’s overpayment pending the outcome of her appeal.

“We understand the struggles facing so many carers, which is why have launched an independent review of carer’s allowance, to explore how earnings-related overpayments have occurred and what changes can be made. This is due to report in the summer and the government will consider its findings following its conclusion.”

UK police have arrested five men, including four Iranian nationals, on suspicion of “terrorism offences”, police have said.

The arrests were carried out in London, Swindon and the Greater Manchester area and were related to “a suspected plot to target a specific premises”, London’s Metropolitan police said in a statement.

The men, aged between 29 and 46, were arrested on suspicion of “preparation of a terrorist act” and remain in custody, the police said.

The nationality of one of the men was still being established, they said.

Counter-terrorism police had been in contact with the site allegedly targeted to make them aware and to provide relevant advice and support but it had not been identified for operational reasons, police said.

“This is a fast-moving investigation and we are working closely with those at the affected site to keep them updated,” Cmdr Dominic Murphy, head of the Met’s counter-terrorism command, said.

“The investigation is still in its early stages, and we are exploring various lines of inquiry to establish any potential motivation as well as to identify whether there may be any further risk to the public linked to this matter.

“We understand the public may be concerned and, as always, I would ask them to remain vigilant and if they see or hear anything that concerns them, then to contact us.”

Murphy added: “We are working closely with local officers in the areas where we have made arrests today and I’d like to thank police colleagues around the country for their ongoing support.”

Officers are carrying out searches at a number of addresses in the Greater Manchester, London and Swindon areas in connection with the investigation.

The arrests and searches are being supported by officers from Greater Manchester police and Wiltshire police, as well as colleagues from counter-terrorism policing from across the country.

Press Association and Agence France-Presse contributed to this report

A factory processing US hazardous waste in Mexico has promised to relocate what authorities call its “most polluting” operations following a Guardian investigation.

The plant in the Monterrey metropolitan area recycles toxic steel dust sent by the US steel industry and recovers zinc, according to that reporting, which was produced in partnership with Quinto Elemento Lab, a Mexico investigative journalism unit. It revealed evidence of heavy-metals pollution in the surrounding neighborhoods.

The factory, Zinc Nacional, has since been contending with inspections and threats of closures by environmental regulators, court actions and media scrutiny.

Neighbors have held repeated demonstrations outside the plant, carrying signs with slogans such as “Take your mess to the US” and “Your millions are not worth our lives.”

The company has said that it operates “in compliance with every applicable regulation”, and that by recovering zinc from the by-products of the steel industry it saves valuable materials from going to landfills.

In a letter to authorities of the state of Nuevo León, the company has now vowed to move its most “intensive” operations away from its current location in the middle of the Monterrey metropolitan area within two years. It did not specify where to, except that it would be “outside the Monterrey metropolitan area” and that the company would maintain “more than one thousand jobs”. It also promised to build a huge enclosure to contain its materials on its existing site, some of which currently sit uncovered, and to plant more trees around its land.

Zinc Nacional did not provide answers to questions from reporters about details of the plan.

“It’s something that has never happened before – companies starting to shut down operations voluntarily,” said Eugenio Peña, Zinc Nacional’s director of operations, according to recordings of a meeting with neighbors and the secretary of the environment for the Mexican state of Nuevo León last week. He said the move is a small step in solving the Monterrey region’s “complex environmental problem”.

“For us, it’s a very important step, and it involves a monstrous amount of money. We want to continue collaborating, to be an open company.”

Some neighbors expressed scepticism that the company would actually follow through with its promises. Many of them say they have been contending with dust and smoke from the plant for years and they fear pollution is causing illness, especially for children and elderly people in the neighborhood.

“In their proposal, there’s no mention of the affected citizens, much less any talk about health or damage reparations,” said Ricardo González, a neighborhood activist, who wonders if contamination from the plant may have contributed to years of illness his mother has faced. He said the company continues to maintain “that they comply and do everything properly”.

“So, for me, that proposal is completely disconnected from reality,” he said.

Soil sampling conducted by a university toxicologist in collaboration with the investigation showed high levels of lead, cadmium and arsenic in homes, schools and yards in the neighborhood – including one elementary school that had 1,760 times the US action level for lead dust in its window sills. The company’s emission reports to the government show that it releases lead, cadmium and arsenic into the air.

But Peña told neighbors that despite Zinc Nacional’s relocation plans, it disputes the toxicology research that found heavy metals near its plant. He said more samples should have been taken and that the university lab that analysed the soil did not have certification from federal environmental agencies for such industrial samples.

“We haven’t gone public to discredit it yet, but at some point the truth will come out,” he said. “Because it affects people – it scares the neighbors.”

“Obviously, the competent authorities should conduct a more complete study, one that follows all legal protocols, so you can build a solid case,” he said.

The researcher, Martín Soto Jiménez, a professor at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, said that he has always been willing to explain his methodology, certifications and conclusions to the company.

“We raised the alarm about the pollution that was occurring,” he said. “But all the decisions regarding closure, whether temporary or permanent, were based and supported on site by the inspectors’ observations.”

Mexico’s federal environmental investigation agency, known as Profepa, is conducting investigations into Zinc Nacional on several fronts, including air and soil testing. It declined to renew the company’s “clean industry” certificate, which it has held for years, and announced an audit of the environmental consultants whom the company hired to obtain it. “Profepa seeks to ensure that all companies with a Profepa certification actually have good environmental performance,” the agency said in a statement.

Twice in the past two months, the state government has said it closed furnaces at the plant.

The company said it had cooperated with inspectors and had presented a plan to accelerate pollution control investments and lower its environmental footprint. On 11 April, it won an interim court order that will allow it to remain operating while the matter moves through the courts.

Glen Zambrano, the director of parks and wildlife for the state, lives near the plant and has been vocal against the pollution.

“It was predictable they would fight – it’s a massive company. And we anticipated it,” he said in an interview.

He said that soil and wildlife in the area are also being tested for heavy metal contamination.

“We’re analyzing soil samples and blood from mammals we captured in the area.”

Families with schoolchildren in the area have also been seeking blood testing and information about pollutants and their effects on health.

Cristóbal Palacios, a neighborhood leader, said some residents hope to form a committee to ensure progress is made on issues surrounding Zinc Nacional, in conjunction with professional researchers who can assess the pollution in the area and its effects.

“There is currently no consensus,” said Palacios. “Some people believe that what Zinc is proposing today is merely a plan to further grow as a company. The deal seems convenient for them, but completely ignores the population that has already been affected.”

A playdate between the world’s tallest and smallest living dogs went the way of most dog park encounters despite the 3ft (0.91-meter) height difference – lots of tail wagging, sniffing and scampering.

Reginald, a seven-year-old great dane from Idaho, and Pearl, a chihuahua from Florida, are both certified winners in their respective height titles by Guinness World Records. The fact that Reginald is the size of a small horse and Pearl is as small as an apple didn’t stop them from getting along famously.

Pearl, a four-year-old who stands at 3.59in (9.14cm), comes from a long line of short dogs. Her aunt Milly, a previous record holder in the same category, until she died in 2020, also was under 4in (10.16cm) tall.

Both Milly and Pearl weighed 1oz (28.35 grams) at birth.

“I was not expecting to once again have the record,” said Vanesa Semler of Orlando, Florida, owner of both tiny dogs. “That would be like unbelievable.”

Guinness arranged the two-day meet-up between Pearl and Reginald – who also goes by Reggie and measures in at a whopping 3ft 3in (1 meter) – last month at his home in Idaho Falls.

Even though Pearl loves dogs, even big dogs, Semler said she was anxious because of Reginald’s size.

“For me, [it] was a huge, pleasant surprise from day one because Reggie is like Pearl, in bigger size,” she said. “He is so gentle, so friendly.”

Reggie, for his part, might have been more interested in the Guinness film crew that accompanied Pearl than the tiny dog herself.

“I would say he likes people a little bit more than he likes other dogs,” said Sam Johnson Reiss, his owner.

Pearl’s tiny size was also strange for the big boy.

“He was like very cautious, like a little anxious,” Reiss said. “He was very careful, like he didn’t step on her or anything or anything crazy. He was just very aware that she was there.”

Reggie’s super size was evident early on, especially on a dog park visit when he towered over other great danes despite being only nine months old.

“They would be shorter than him, and they were like full-grown,” Reiss said.

There might have been a little jealousy shown over toys and beds, but Reggie and Pearl found common ground during their two days roaming the Idaho farm together.

“I think she found a good friend,” Semler said.

Semler said Pearl is her prima donna, with the chihuahua even picking out the clothes she wants to wear every day by placing her paw on the outfits laid out before her. That comes in handy when news crews are lining up for interviews.

“For us, she was always our diva,” Semler said. “Now she’s a diva for everyone.”

Pearl doesn’t have the top diva title quite yet, with Reiss saying Reggie – who has a new Instagram account – has his own diva moments.

“He’s pretty high-maintenance,” Reiss said. “Reggie’s just cheeky, like he’s kind of mischievous and silly and definitely tells you when he wants something.”