Anthony Albanese says his job is to “represent Australia’s national interest” after his thumping election win, shrugging off questions about when he might visit the United States to speak to Donald Trump about tariffs and trade.

The re-elected prime minister said he had spoken to the leaders of Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, France and the UK, and looked forward to calls with the presidents of Indonesia and Ukraine.

“My job here is to represent Australia’s national interest and that’s what I’ll be doing, and the first thing I’ll be doing is going to Canberra,” he said.

Trump cast a long shadow over the opposition’s campaign, particularly after early Coalition policies including a “government efficiency” push and public service cuts proved unpopular. The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, who lost his own seat of Dickson, had intermittently flirted with Trump-style politics, as did the shadow minister Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, whose mid-campaign call to “make Australia great again” was seen as a decisive moment by some in the Labor government.

Albanese promised that Labor would be “a disciplined, orderly government” in its second term. Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the government would use its increased parliamentary majority to address challenges in housing, the renewable energy transition and boosting economic productivity, and in emerging technological issues including artificial intelligence.

The work for Labor began immediately after Saturday night’s thumping win, with Albanese heading back to Canberra after a celebratory coffee and pastry in his Sydney electorate, and Chalmers receiving briefings from the Treasury early on Sunday.

The makeup of the Senate is still to be confirmed but Albanese is likely to enjoy one of the most progressive parliaments in Australian history. The ALP national president, Wayne Swan, said it was an opportunity for Albanese to “further reshape our nation as a prosperous, egalitarian and forward-looking society”, with some in Labor already thinking the size of the win and the decimation of the Liberal party as being an opening to lock down the Treasury benches for many years to come.

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

“We’re not getting carried away with it,” Albanese said in Leichhardt on Sunday morning. “We’ve got a big job to do. We thank the Australian people for having faith in us.

“I think we’ve been a good government but we’ve got a good, positive agenda, and that’s what Australian people voted for yesterday.”

The Australian Electoral Commission has Labor leading in 73 seats, with a further nine likely, and about 20 still in play. The ABC has called 85 seats for Labor, with 18 still in doubt. Labor could end up with 90 or more, with the Coalition reduced to the low 40s.

The prime minister, in his victory speech on Saturday night, raised workers’ rights, housing, gender equality, childcare, the NDIS and Indigenous reconciliation as the priorities of his second-term government.

“We will be a disciplined, orderly government in our second term as we have been in our first.”

On Sunday morning Albanese visited Bar Italia, a cafe in his Grayndler electorate, in Sydney’s inner west, to have breakfast with a small group of supporters and friends. Joined by the finance minister, Katy Gallagher, and the MP Jerome Laxale, who turned Bennelong from notionally Liberal seat to a safe Labor seat with a 60-40 margin, Albanese posed for selfies with other cafe patrons and scooped gelato into cones and cups for a few customers.

He told one patron that the election result was “humbling”, then joked that Labor had “scooped up more than a few” seats.

Chalmers said the election result was “beyond even our most optimistic expectations”, pointing to unexpected seats like Petrie now likely to fall Labor’s way. On the ABC’s Insiders, the treasurer said Labor needed to approach its second term with “humility”, pointing to challenges including the cost of living and housing crisis.

“We know that this second term has been given to us by the Australian people because they want stability in uncertain times, and not because they think we’ve solved every challenge in our economy or in our society more broadly, but because we’re better-placed to work towards solving some of those challenges,” he said.

Chalmers said Labor had an “ambitious” agenda to implement but tempered expectations for further bolder reforms by cautioning that the government would not control the Senate.

“We have a big agenda,” he said. “We’re looking forward to implementing it with confidence, with the confidence that comes from a big majority, a substantial majority.

“We have to build more homes. We’ve got to get this energy transformation right. We’ve got to do more to embrace technology, particularly the AI opportunity. There’s a huge agenda there for us.”

Chalmers said he had received a briefing from the Treasury secretary, Steven Kennedy, at 6.45am and pointed to boosting productivity in the economy as the major objective of his next few years.

“The first term was primarily inflation without forgetting productivity,” he said. “The second term will be primarily productivity without forgetting inflation … And a much broader sense of [productivity].

“Human capital. Competition policy. Technology. Energy. The care economy. These are where we’re going to find the productivity gains – and not quickly, but over the medium term.”

The scale of Labor’s victory was not publicly foreshadowed by any in the government; indeed, numerous Labor sources told Guardian Australia that several seats, including Hughes and Moore, had not been on their radar. Another critical question is how the Liberal party will rebuild after its moderate wing was all but wiped out, with the party now having little representation in Australia’s major cities.

Swan, who was the treasurer under Kevin Rudd, called the result a “generational opportunity” for Labor and a “a moment to rejuvenate our party” with a more diverse grassroots membership.

“We need to capitalise by bringing more Australians – especially working Australians – into the ranks of our great party,” he said. “Because the surest way to safeguard Labor’s achievements and its future work is to build an even stronger party, with deeper grassroots.

“Our Tory opponents are in a withered state but they will reorganise and return. Perhaps in even darker guise than we saw this election. We need to be ready for that.

“We must build a larger and more representative membership that can campaign throughout the cycle, not just at election time.”

Romanians are voting in a presidential election rerun that could propel to power an ultranationalist who opposes military aid to Ukraine, has fiercely criticised the EU’s leadership and describes himself as a “natural ally” of Donald Trump.

George Simion, 38, is comfortably ahead in the opinion polls before the first-round vote in the EU and Nato member state, nearly six months after the original ballot was cancelled amid evidence of an alleged “massive” Russian influence campaign.

The election is being closely watched: a far-right victory could lead to Romania, which shares a border with Ukraine, veering from its pro-western path and becoming another disruptive force within the bloc and the transatlantic defence alliance.

After the election was cancelled, hard-right politicians worldwide, including senior Trump administration figures, accused Bucharest of trampling on free speech and ignoring “the voice of the people”. The US vice-president, JD Vance, accused Romania’s authorities of “cancelling elections because you don’t like the result”.

The original vote last November was won by Călin Georgescu, a far-right, anti-EU, Moscow-friendly independent who declared zero campaign spending but surged from less than 5% days before the vote to finish first on 23%.

The constitutional court annulled the vote after declassified intelligence documents revealed an alleged Russian influence operation, including multiple cyber-attacks on the electoral IT system and large-scale social media meddling in Georgescu’s favour.

In February, Georgescu, who denies any wrongdoing, was placed under investigation on counts including misreporting campaign finances, misuse of digital technology and promoting fascist groups, and in March he was barred from standing in the rerun.

Simion hopes to benefit from public anger at the cancellation and Georgescu’s disbarment. “It is clear a strong anti-western trend has been built up and Romania’s direction is at unprecedented risk,” said Cristian Pîrvulescu, a political scientist.

As in the original campaign, social media – especially TikTok – is playing a major part. Simion, whose posts combine nationalist rhetoric with an emotionally charged delivery and direct-to-camera speeches, has 1.3 million followers on the app.

“The time for rebirth has come,” he said in a video posted on Tuesday. “Our nation will find its way again … We have within us the power to be reborn and to move forward, more united and stronger.”

The far-right candidate, whose party, the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), began as an anti-vaxx movement during the pandemic, aims to bring Georgescu into government if he wins, though the far right does not have a parliamentary majority.

Describing himself as “more moderate” than Georgescu, Simion has repeatedly insisted on Romania’s “sovereignty”. He has called for territories that were part of Romania but were ceded to the USSR in the second world war and are now part of Moldova and Ukraine to be returned to Romania. Simion is banned from entering both Moldova and Ukraine.

In contrast to Georgescu, however, Simion has frequently denounced Russia, while lashing out at Brussels and praising Trump’s Republicans in the US. He has said he aims to set up an alliance of countries within the EU “in the spirit of Maga”.

On about 30% in the polls, Simion is about 10 points clear of his two centrist rivals, the mayor of Bucharest, Nicușor Dan, and Crin Antonescu, backed by the ruling Social Democratic party (PSD) and centre-right National Liberal party (PNL).

Despite his convincing polling lead, it appears unlikely Simion will secure the 50% of the vote needed to win outright on Sunday. Instead, he is seen advancing to a second-round runoff, due on 18 May, against either Antonescu or Dan.

Romania’s president has a semi-executive role with considerable powers over foreign policy, national security, defence spending and judicial appointments. They also represent the country on the international stage and can veto important EU votes.

If he is elected, Simion has said he will make public the records of meetings that led to the original election being cancelled, and also reveal “how much we have contributed to the war effort in Ukraine, to the detriment of Romanian children and our elderly”.

Having placed fourth in the November ballot, he refused to participate in TV election debates this week, saying the annulment was a “coup d’état”, Georgescu should have been at the table, and he was staying away “out of respect for the will of the people”.

Polling stations opened at 7am local time on Sunday and close at 9pm, with the first exit polls expected soon after. In the event of a close result, the final outcome could take many hours to be confirmed, as between 5% and 7% of votes are cast abroad.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor and philanthropist, has announced his intention to retire at the end of this year. He is 94 years old.

Buffett, the fifth-richest person in the world, shocked an arena full of shareholders on Saturday when he announced that he would step down as the CEO and chair of the trillion-dollar conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway at the end of 2025. He will recommend to the 11-person board that his vice-chair, Greg Abel, who currently oversees most of the company’s investments, be named as his successor, Buffett said.

The thousands of investors at the arena in Omaha, Nebraska, gave Buffett a lengthy standing ovation in recognition of his 60 years of leading the company.

“I think the time has arrived where Greg should become the chief executive officer of the company at year end,” Buffett said.

“I have no intention – zero – of selling one share of Berkshire Hathaway. I will give it away eventually,” Buffett said. “The decision to keep every share is an economic decision because I think the prospects of Berkshire will be better under Greg’s management than mine.”

Buffett made the announcement at the end of a five-hour question-and-answer session, and did not take any queries about his retirement plans. The only board members who knew about the announcement in advance were his children, Howard and Susie Buffett, he said. Abel, who was sitting next to Buffett on stage, was unaware, but stood to join the crowd in applauding his boss.

Abel, 62, who was born in Alberta, Canada, has been Buffett’s designated successor as CEO since 2001. He is a 25-year Berkshire veteran and already manages all of the conglomerate’s non-insurance businesses including dozens of fossil energy, chemical, real estate and retail operations. But despite Buffett’s advanced age, the announcement came as a shock as the Berkshire CEO previously insisted that he had no plans to retire.

Buffett has led the Omaha-based company since 1965, and is credited by many with transforming Berkshire from a flailing textiles manufacturer into a $1.03tn conglomerate with dozens of businesses in insurance, railroad, energy and other sectors.

Buffett, a Democrat, has previously said that he plans to donate 99.5% of his remaining wealth to a charitable trust overseen by his daughter and two sons when he dies. According to Forbes, Buffett has a net worth of $165.3bn.

Earlier on Saturday, Buffett warned about the dire global consequences of Donald Trump’s tariffs, telling thousands of investors gathered at the annual meeting that “there’s no question that trade can be an act of war”.

Buffett said Trump’s trade policies have raised the risk of global instability by angering the rest of the world.

“It’s a big mistake in my view when you have 7.5 billion people who don’t like you very well, and you have 300 million who are crowing about how they have done.

“We should be looking to trade with the rest of the world. We should do what we do best and they should do what they do best,” he said.

In February, Berkshire reported a third straight record annual operating profit, rising 27%, to $47.44bn, in 2024. It’s unclear what impact Trump’s tariffs will have on Berkshire’s 189 operating businesses and shareholder profits.

Buffett, a longtime Democratic mover and shaker, did not endorse Kamala Harris in 2024 or Joe Biden in 2020. He had previously endorsed Barack Obama twice and Hillary Clinton.

Buffett has faced his share of controversies including anti-trust investigations and criticism from fire victims after Berkshire’s PacifiCorp utility failed to shut off power lines during a Labor Day weekend windstorm in 2020, leading to deadly wildfires spreading in Oregon and northern California.

Speaking before the retirement bombshell, Abel said that “keeping the lights on” is no longer a priority for the conglomerate’s utilities when the threat of wildfires becomes excessive.

“It’s around protecting the general public and being sure the fire doesn’t spread further,” he said.

Israeli airstrikes have killed at least 40 people across Gaza during the past 24 hours, civil defence officials in the devastated Palestinian territory said, as Israel’s government prepared to order an expansion of its military offensive.

Nine people were killed when a strike hit a home in the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza; another six people died in a separate strike targeting a family home in the northern city of Beit Lahiya; six more died in a strike on a community kitchen in Gaza City, and an overnight attack on the Khan Younis refugee camp killed at least 11 people including three babies up to a year old, the officials said.

Asked to comment on the strikes, an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesperson said the military “takes feasible precautions to mitigate civilian harm”.

Israel resumed its bombing campaign in Gaza on 18 March, ending a fragile ceasefire. Since then, at least 2,326 people have been killed, bringing the death toll since the war broke out to 52,418, according to the health ministry in Gaza.

Israel has accused Hamas of using civilians as human shields, a charge denied by the radical Islamist organisation. It also accuses Hamas of stealing and selling aid to fund its military and other operations.

The war was triggered by a surprise attack launched by Hamas into Israel on 7 October 2023. Militants killed more than 1,200 people on the Israeli side, mostly civilians, and abducted 251 people, 58 of whom are still held in Gaza, including 34 whom the Israeli military says are dead.

Aid officials have warned of a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, with famine again looming. On Friday, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) warned that the humanitarian response in Gaza was on the “verge of total collapse”.

“This situation must not – and cannot – be allowed to escalate further,” Pascal Hundt, the ICRC’s deputy director of operations, said in a statement.

There has been no progress in faltering negotiations for a new ceasefire-for-hostages deal in recent weeks, and reports in Israeli media suggest Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, will soon approve a new broader offensive as well as a new plan drawn up by Israeli officials for renewed distribution of aid in Gaza involving private contractors and a small number of “hubs” to be constructed in the south of the territory.

Humanitarian officials in Gaza told the Guardian last week that the proposed Israeli aid plan was impracticable and unethical.

“The current scheme just won’t work unless there are a lot more distribution hubs and even then we cannot be a party to something that may drive massive and possibly permanent displacement within Gaza,” one senior humanitarian official said.

The US president, Donald Trump, is thought to be likely to press Israel for some concessions on aid entering Gaza before he visits Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar this month. A week ago, he told Netanyahu to be “good to Gaza”.

Analysts are divided on whether warnings issued to tens of thousands of Israeli reservists to expect to be called up in the coming days or weeks are designed to put further pressure on Hamas to make concessions in talks or are evidence that a new offensive in Gaza is imminent.

Israel’s military is already overstretched after 18 months of war, with a shortfall of about 7,000 combat soldiers. Government officials describe a “seven-front war” that could last another year.

On Saturday morning, sirens sounded in Israel for the second day running, warning of an incoming missile launched by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, who say the attacks are in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. Air defences intercepted the missile.

Separately, Israel’s military said on Saturday its forces deployed in southern Syria were ready to protect the Druze minority, without specifying whether this was a new deployment or giving further details on the number of troops on the ground.

After deadly sectarian clashes near Damascus earlier this week, Israel has conducted multiple strikes it says were meant to protect the Druze community and warned Syria’s Islamist rulers against harming the minority group.

On Saturday, the Israeli military said that “five Syrian Druze citizens were evacuated to receive medical treatment in Israel overnight” after sustaining injuries on Syrian territory.

A Druze official in the southern Syrian city Sweida said those evacuated had been wounded “in clashes in Sahnaya”, the site of recent sectarian violence near Damascus, but were afraid of being sent to hospitals in the Syrian capital out of fear of being detained.

Israel launched a new wave of more than 20 airstrikes in Syria late on Friday, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group. Early on Friday, Israel had launched an attack near the presidential palace in Damascus, which Syrian authorities condemned as a “dangerous escalation”.

Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, warned on Thursday that Israel would respond forcefully if Syria’s new government failed to protect the Druze minority.

Since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December, Israel has launched repeated airstrikes on Syria. It has also sent troops to what was a demilitarised zone in the Golan Heights, on Syria’s south-west border with Israel, seizing key strategic terrain where Syrian troops were once deployed.

Analysts in Israel say the strategy aims to undermine the new Syrian government while also protecting and so co-opting a potential proxy ally within the country. The strategy is controversial, however, with some officials arguing that a stable Syria would better serve Israel’s interests.

The government in Damascus took power after ousting Assad and is dominated by the militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which has its roots in al-Qaida’s jihadist network. Though Syria’s new rulers have promised inclusive rule in the multiconfessional, multi-ethnic country, they face pressures from extremists within their own ranks.

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.”

Voters in a small patch of south Texas voted on Saturday to give Elon Musk a town to call his own, officially creating a new city called Starbase in the area where Musk’s SpaceX holds rocket launches.

A couple of hundred residents of what was previously known as Boca Chica decided to make their unincorporated neighborhoods into a town that will grant them the authority to pass city ordinances.

The ballot, which also named a senior SpaceX representative as its mayor with 100% of the early vote, was never really in doubt.

Most of the 283 eligible voters were SpaceX employees or had connections to the company, whose billionaire chief has long wanted a human mission to Mars.

“Starbase, Texas,” Musk wrote on his social media platform X, “Is now a real city!”

His post came after polls closed and unofficial results published by Cameron County showed an unambiguous 97.7% backing for the project.

Musk himself is registered to vote, Cameron County election coordinator Remi Garza told Agence France-Presse, but the South African-born 53-year-old had yet to cast his ballot when the early voting period closed on 29 April.

The creation of Starbase puts Musk in the unusual position of holding sway over a company town, a distinction that has more in common with Gilded Age industrialists than most modern US businesses. It is a small victory for the world’s richest man as he pivots away from his job as de facto leader of the “department of government efficiency” – a role that has elicited furious backlash and hurt his public image as well as his businesses.

Much like with Doge, Musk will not officially be in charge of Starbase. The entirety of the future city revolves around SpaceX, however, and it is almost entirely made up of the company’s employees and their kin. The Starbase population, as of 2025, is a little over 500 people, 260 of whom are SpaceX employees. The others are mostly family members of workers, according to Bloomberg.

The town’s new mayor, 36-year-old Bobby Peden, has worked at SpaceX since 2013 and is vice-president of test and launch operations in Texas. Peden, along with two other city commissioner candidates who are also SpaceX employees, ran unopposed.

Starbase sits on a tiny piece of land near the Mexican border on a small bay that feeds into the Gulf of Mexico. Prefabricated houses, airstreams and palm trees line the streets. An imperious golden bust of Musk stands nine feet tall outside the town. A plaque on its pedestal reads “ELON AKA Memelord”.

Last month, vandals defaced the statue by peeling off layers of foam and fiberglass from its cheeks. There is an employee-only restaurant called Astropub with a neon red “Occupy Mars” sign behind the bar. One of the main boulevards is called “Memes Street”.

Although creating Starbase is likely somewhat of a vanity project, one which Musk has been touting for years, it does grant the potential city and its SpaceX leadership powers over what to do with the land. Company workers submitted identical statements to a legislative hearing in April arguing that creating the town would help with logistics and coordination around issues such as road closures during test launches, the Associated Press reported.

Opposing Starbase

The incorporation of Starbase has also faced protests and pushback from others in the area. The South Texas Environmental Justice Network activist group has been holding protests and urging Texans to email their state representatives to oppose the incorporation. The group argued that creating Starbase would allow SpaceX to close access to the public beach in the town whenever it wants and block others from using the public land.

“Boca Chica Beach is meant for the people, not Elon Musk to control,” the organization said in a statement on its site. “For generations, residents have visited Boca Chica beach for fishing, swimming, recreation, and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe has spiritual ties to the beach. They should be able to keep access.”

Musk has in previous years made grand pronouncements about the future of Starbase while urging employees to move to the town. “Starbase will grow by several thousand people over the next year or two,” he posted on X in 2021.

SpaceX has become an increasingly valuable part of Musk’s empire as Tesla’s performance has tanked and the government has turned to SpaceX for billions of dollars in contracts related to space travel.

Musk has relocated his primary residence and businesses to Texas in recent years. He lives in a $35m sprawling compound in Austin that houses three separate mansions. During his backing of Trump’s re-election last year, he temporarily uprooted and moved to the swing state of Pennsylvania.

Musk then took up residence in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building while serving as senior adviser to Donald Trump, but left the White House in late April as he shifts back to overseeing his companies.

Agence France-Presse contributed to this report