Keir Starmer touched upon a number of difficult topics in his first press conference as prime minister, answering questions on prisons, NHS understaffing and the economy.

The 20-minute session also gave way to a few lighthearted moments from a politician who has long been accused of lacking pizzazz.

He has not yet unpacked or found his way around No 10

“I’ve got a basic understanding of the rooms I’ve used so far here, and that’s good, but there are plenty of hidden places I’ve yet to discover,” Starmer said. “We are not unpacked quite yet, but we will be soon and we’ll be moving in soon. But there’s a bit of work to do before then.”

On his new title of ‘prime minister’

“I am getting used to it,” Starmer said, in response to a question from Channel 4. “I am very happy to be called Keir or prime minister.”

While he repeated at least twice that he was “happy to be called Keir”, he acknowledged the importance for those in civil service to address him by his new title.

“For them, it is important to refer to the office holder as ‘prime minister’ because they’re serving the office,” he said. “I recognised this when I was director of public prosecutions. It is actually important to them to use the title because it reinforces in them what they are doing by way of public service and I respect that and understand that.”

On the 10pm exit poll that all but sealed a Labour victory

“I was pleased to see that exit poll,” he said.

“I didn’t believe it until, like everybody else, I stayed up to watch every single result come in. It was only as the final results came through that I was confident we got to where we needed to be to do the work that we need to do.”

On his new cabinet

Starmer said he was proud that his cabinet will have the highest number of state-educated and female ministers in history.

“I’m really proud of the fact that my cabinet reflects the aspiration that I believe lies at the heart of our country,” he said. “That aspiration that so many people have, wherever they started from, to make a journey in life for themselves, for their families, their communities and ultimately for their country.”

Though Starmer had to catch himself referring to the “shadow cabinet”, he quickly corrected to say that at the cabinet meeting, he had told ministers: “I’m proud of the fact that we have people around the cabinet table who didn’t have the easiest of starts in life.

“To see them sitting in the cabinet this morning was a proud moment for me and this changed Labour party and a reinforcement of my belief in that aspiration, which is a value I use to help me make decisions,” he said.

Joe Biden’s doctor met with a leading Washington DC neurologist at the White House this year, it was reported on Saturday.

The report came after Biden on Friday ruled out taking an independent cognitive test and releasing its findings publicly, in an interview with ABC News arranged following his disastrous performance in last week’s presidential TV debate with Donald Trump.

According White House visitor logs reviewed by the New York Post, Dr Kevin Cannard, a Parkinson’s disease expert at Walter Reed medical center, met with Dr Kevin O’Connor, a doctor of osteopathic medicine who has treated the president for years.

The visit took place at the White House residence clinic on 17 January. Cannard has visited the White House house eight times since August 2023. On seven of those visits, most recently in late March, he met with Megan Nasworthy, a liaison between Walter Reed and the White House.

Biden has consistently rejected taking any cognitive test, including in August 2020 when he dismissed a reporter’s question with: “Why the hell would I take a test?” He has continued to dismiss the need for one and, according to aides, has not received one during his three annual physical exams during his term in the White House.

The Washington Post on Saturday reported a White House aide saying that O’Connor, who has been Biden’s doctor since 2009, has never recommended that Biden take a cognitive test.

O’Connor has said that his most important job is to offer Biden an affirmative “Good morning, Mr President” – to get Biden off the on the right track each day.

During Biden’s ABC News interview on Friday, the anchor George Stephanopoulos, who was communications director in the Clinton White House, asked Biden if had taken specific tests for cognitive capability. “No one said I had to … they said I’m good,” Biden replied.

Later in the broadcast, Biden was asked if he would do an independent neurological and cognitive exam and release the results. “I get a cognitive test every day,” Biden said. “Everything I do – you know, not only am I campaigning, but I’m running the world.”

Pressed on the issue, he said: “I’ve already done it.”

Earlier this year, the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, defended O’Connor’s decision not to administer a cognitive test when the issue came up following a report by the special counsel Robert Hur into classified documents found at Biden’s Delaware home that concluded Biden was a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory”.

At that time, as now, the White House pushed back, accusing Hur of being part of a partisan smear campaign. “I’m well-meaning, and I’m elderly, and I know what I’m doing,” Biden said at a news conference. “My memory is fine.”

But the eight visits Kevin Cannard has made to the White House over the past eleven months are certain to raise further questions about the 81-year-old president’s mental abilities in the wake of his debate with Donald Trump and subsequent verbal mistakes, including during a radio interview on Thursday when he said he was “proud” to be the “first Black woman to serve with a Black president”.

Cannard has served as the “neurology specialist supporting the White House medical unit” since 2012 and published academic papers including one last year in the Parkinsonism & Related Disorders journal that focused on the “early stage” of the brain degenerative disorder.

Ronny Jackson, a Republican congressman in Texas who was White House doctor for Barack Obama and Trump, has previously called for Biden to undergo a cognitive exam and accused O’Connor and Biden’s family of trying to “cover up” problems with Biden’s mental abilities.

Jackson told the New York Post he believed that O’Connor and Biden “have led the cover up”.

“Kevin O’Connor is like a son to Jill Biden – she loves him,” Jackson continued, adding that ‘they knew they could trust Kevin to say and do anything that needed to be said or done”.

Last week, the White House initially denied but later confirmed that Biden had seen a doctor since the debate. It has said that the president’s performance was affected, variously, by a cold, over-preparation and jet-lag. Biden has said simply: “I screwed up.”

I am not usually one to offer diagnoses of people I’ve never met, but it does seem like the pundit class of the American media is suffering from severe memory loss. Because they’re doing exactly what they did in the 2016 presidential race – providing wildly asymmetrical and inflammatory coverage of the one candidate running against Donald J Trump.

They have become a stampeding herd producing an avalanche of stories suggesting Biden is unfit, will lose, and should go away, at a point in the campaign in which replacing him would likely be somewhere between extremely difficult and utterly catastrophic. They do this while ignoring something every scholar and critic of journalism knows well and every journalist should. As Nikole Hannah-Jones put it: “As media we consistently proclaim that we are just reporting the news when in fact we are driving it. What we cover, how we cover it, determines often what Americans think is important and how they perceive these issues yet we keep pretending it’s not so.” They are not reporting that he is a loser; they are making him one.

According to one journalist’s tally, the New York Times has run 192 stories on the subject since the debate, including 50 editorials and 142 news stories. The Washington Post, which has also gone for saturation coverage, published a resignation speech they wrote for him. Not to be outdone, the New Yorker’s editor-in-chief declared that Biden not going away “would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment” and had a staff writer suggest that Democrats should use the never-before-deployed 25th amendment.

Since this would have to be led by Vice-President Kamala Harris, it would be a sort of insider coup. And so it goes with what appears to be a journalistic competition to outdo each other in the aggressiveness of the attacks and the unreality of the proposals. It’s a dogpile and a panic, and there is no one more unable to understand their own emotional life, biases, and motives than people who are utterly convinced of their own ironclad rationality and objectivity, AKA most of these pundits.

Speaking of coups, we’ve had a couple of late, which perhaps merit attention as we consider who is unfit to hold office. This time around, Trump is not just a celebrity with a lot of sexual assault allegations, bankruptcies, and loopily malicious statements, as he was in 2016. He’s a convicted criminal who orchestrated a coup attempt to steal an election both through backroom corruption and public lies and through a violent attack on Congress. The extremist US supreme court justices he selected during his last presidential term have themselves staged a coup this very Monday, overthrowing the US constitution itself and the principle that no one is above the law to make presidents into kings, just after legalizing bribery of officials, and dismantling the regulatory state by throwing out the Chevron deference.

His own former staffers are part of the Heritage Foundation’s team planning to implement Project 25 if Trump wins, which would finish off our system of government with yet another coup. “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be,” said the foundation’s president the other day. This alarms me. So does the behavior of the US mainstream media, which seems more concerned with sabotaging the only thing standing between us and this third coup.

“Why aren’t we talking about Trump’s fascism?” demands the headline of Jeet Heer’s piece in the Nation, to which the answer might be a piece by the Nation’s own editor-in-chief titled “Biden’s patriotic duty” that proposes his duty is to get lost. Sometimes I wonder if all this coverage is because the media know how to cover a normal problem like a sub-par candidate; they don’t know how to cover something as abnormal and unprecedented as the end of the Republic. So for the most part they don’t.

Biden is old. He was one kind of appalling in the 27 June debate, listless and sometimes stumbling and muddling his words. But Trump was another kind of appalling, in that almost everything he said was an outrageous lie and some of it was a threat. I get that writing about the monstrosity that is Trump faces the problem that it’s not news; he’s been a monster spouting lurid nonsense all his life (but his political crimes are recent, and his free-associating public soliloquies on sharks, batteries, toilets, water flow, and Hannibal Lector, among other topics, are genuinely demented). He’s a racist, a fascist, and a rapist (according to a civil-court verdict).

We are deciding if this nation has a future as a more-or-less democratic Republic this November, and on that rides the fate of the earth when it comes to acting on climate change. If the US falters at this decisive moment in the climate crisis, it will drag down everyone else’s efforts. Under Trump, it will. But the shocking supreme court decisions this summer and the looming threat of authoritarianism have gotten little ink and air, compared to the hue and cry about Biden’s competence.

Few seem to remember that Biden’s age and his verbal gaffes were an issue in the 2020 campaign. Biden is a lifelong stutterer, and the effort to keep his words on track means that he operates under an extra burden with every unscripted answer he gives, particularly under pressure (though he had a long, easygoing conversation with Howard Stern a couple of months ago, in which he discusses his stuttering at about the 1:13 mark).

Some speech pathologists have suggested he may (not does, just may) have a disorder that sometimes accompanies stuttering, called cluttering, which is not an intellectual deficiency but a sometimes hectic and disorderly translation of thoughts into words. In recent months, actual gerontologists have said in print that Biden appears to have normal signs of aging, not signs of dementia. Nevertheless, the amateur armchair diagnosticians have been out in packs, and their confidence in their ability to diagnose from watching TV is itself an alarming delusion. I am not giving Biden a clean bill of health; I’m saying that I don’t have a basis to render a verdict (and neither do the august editors of large publications).

Although the Biden administration seems to have run extremely well for three and a half years, with a strong cabinet, few scandals and little turnover, a thriving economy and some major legislative accomplishments, the narrative the punditocracy has created suggested we should ignore this record and decide on the basis of the ninety-minute debate and reference to newly surfaced swarms of anonymous sources that Biden is incompetent. Quite a lot of them have been running magical-realism fantasy-football scenarios in which is fun and easy to swap in your favorite substitute candidate. The reality is that it is hard and quite likely to be a terrible mess. Nevertheless this pretense is supposed to mean that telling a presidential candidate in mid-campaign to get lost is fine.

The main argument against Biden is not that he can’t govern – that would be hard to make given that he seems to have done so for the past years – but that he can’t win the election. But candidates do not win elections by themselves. Elections are won, to state the obvious, by how the electorate turns out and votes. The electorate votes based on how they understand the situation and evaluate the candidates. That is, of course, in large part shaped by the media, as Hannah-Jones points out, and the media is right now campaigning hard for a Democratic party loss. The other term for that is a Republican victory. Few things have terrified and horrified me the way this does.

The manosphere has Taylor Swift Derangement Syndrome

Poor Taylor Swift. The pop star is a billionaire and one of the most successful people on the planet. She has an army of devoted fans who happily bankrupt themselves to follow her on record-breaking tours around the world. A German city just temporarily renamed itself Swiftkirchen in her honour. The Federal Reserve has credited her for boosting the economy. And yet, when it comes to the most important metrics of success, Taylor is a tragic failure: she is an ageing, unmarried wench who hath not brought forth a child into this world.

Such is the opinion of John Mac Ghlionn: a man nobody has ever heard of. In a recent op-ed for Newsweek, Ghlionn argued that Swift is a terrible role model for women because “at 34, Swift remains unmarried and childless … While Swift’s musical talent and business acumen are certainly admirable, even laudable, we must ask if her personal life choices are ones we want our sisters and daughters to emulate.”

The opinion of one random man in an obviously rage-bait article published by a dying magazine would not normally be worth wasting oxygen on. However, this extraordinarily misogynistic piece is noteworthy because it reflects the manosphere’s toxic obsession with Swift. Ghlionn’s article came hot on the heels of a tweet by the notorious Andrew Tate blasting Swift for being 34 and unmarried. Tate called Swift “ancient” and asked: “If you’re a girl, why even live past 30 unless you have kids?” There’s nothing insecure men love more than trying to bring successful women down a peg or two.

Swift’s success isn’t the only reason she has rightwing men frothing at the mouth. Her politics also play a role. For a while, you see, the right loved Swift. She is, after all, the very embodiment of heteronormative ideals: a blond-haired, blue-eyed, ultra-feminine white woman who is dating an all-American football player. Andrew Anglin, the writer of the white supremacist blog the Daily Stormer, called Swift a “pure Aryan goddess” at one point, and claimed she was “secretly a Nazi and is simply waiting for the time when Donald Trump makes it safe for her to come out and announce her Aryan agenda to the world”.

In 2020, Swift broke a lot of neo-Nazi hearts when she called white supremacy repulsive and endorsed Biden/Harris. The right swiftly turned on their former goddess and she became the object of numerous conspiracy theories. Earlier this year, for example, a poll found that a massive 18% of Americans believe Swift is part of a “covert government effort” to re-elect Joe Biden. The right hate her because she’s successful but also because she has refused to be part of their political agenda.

Ghlionn’s Newsweek op-ed is also worth acknowledging, because it’s part of a phenomenon you could call brand-washing. Once upon a time, Newsweek, which was founded in 1933, was a highly respected magazine. Over the last 15 years, however, it has been devoured by the digital economy and become a shell of itself. Still, that shell – and the fact that many people still think of Newsweek as a vaguely reputable brand – has proved very useful to the far right. In 2022, for example, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a respected civil rights advocacy organization, published an extensive analysis that found that after Newsweek positioned the political activist Josh Hammer to run its opinion pages (he’s now moved on to be a senior editor-at-large), the magazine took a “radical right turn by buoying extremists and promoting authoritarian leaders”. In his personal podcast, the SPLC observe, Hammer has frequently spoken about “[shifting] the Overton window” and pushing far-right views into the mainstream; that, arguably, was also his goal at Newsweek. As the New Republic noted back in 2020, it certainly looks a lot like Newsweek’s “former legitimacy is [being] used to launder extreme and conspiratorial ideas”.

In short: if you’re wondering why a brand like Newsweek would, in the year 2024, publish an op-ed that essentially argues women have no worth without a husband and kids? Well, you need to look at the broader context of what Newsweek’s become.

Chet Hanks condemns the appropriation of ‘white boy summer’ by the far right

In 2021, Tom Hanks’s son joked on Instagram about how it was going to be a “White Boy Summer”. He then tried to capitalize on this viral moment by putting out a terrible song and even worse music video titled White Boy Summer. Three years later, the meme is back because a new report by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism has found (surprise, surprise) that the term has been co-opted by racists and extremists. In a statement, Hanks called this “deplorable”.

Prescribing of testosterone for middle-aged women ‘out of control’

A rise of “testosterone evangelists” online means that an increasing number of menopausal women are reaching for the hormone in the hope that it will improve their libido, mood, concentration and general health. However, experts are worried that “testosterone prescribing is completely out of control in the UK”, and users may have long-term health implications.

“[T]he vagina has a higher potential for chemical absorption than skin elsewhere on the body,” a report from Berkeley Public Health explains. Tampons are also “used by a large percentage of the population on a monthly basis – 50-80% of those who menstruate use tampons – for several hours at a time”. Despite all this, very little research has been done into chemicals in tampons. “I really hope that manufacturers are required to test their products for metals, especially for toxic metals,” the lead author, a UC Berkeley researcher, said. “It would be exciting to see the public call for this, or to ask for better labeling on tampons and other menstrual products.” This does seem overdue. It feels unbelievable that there hasn’t been more research into tampons. In fact, until 2023, no study had ever been published that tested period products using human blood.

The Afghan women rebuilding shattered dreams in Iran

More than 40,000 Afghan students, mainly women, are now studying at university in Iran. The country has become a “last resort” for many Afghan women who are no longer able to study in their home country because of the Taliban.

New book reveals Kennedys’ shocking treatment of women

Maureen Callahan’s Ask Not: The Kennedys and the Women They Destroyed argues that the famous family should face a reckoning over gender.

Australian senator resigns from ruling Labor party over Gaza

Senator Fatima Payman, whose family fled Afghanistan after the Taliban first took over in 1996, is Australia’s first and only hijab-wearing federal politician. After defying her party’s position and voting for a motion recognizing a Palestinian state, Payman quit Labour but will stay in the upper house as an independent. “Unlike my colleagues, I know how it feels to be on the receiving end of injustice,” Payman explained in a press conference. “My family did not flee a war-torn country to come here as refugees for me to remain silent when I see atrocities inflicted on innocent people.”

The week in pawtriarchy

What with Britain electing a new prime minister and the US counting down the days until November, you might have election coverage fatigue. Treat yourself to a palate cleanser with the Guardian’s hard-hitting coverage of polling place pooches. Paw-litics at its finest.

Some of Rishi Sunak’s closest allies are facing an angry backlash after being awarded honours by the former prime minister, despite their apparent role in the “insane” decision to call an early election.

In a sign of the growing anger within the party ranks over the decision to call the snap poll – as well as alarm over the way it was conducted – the former deputy prime minister Oliver Dowden and chief of staff Liam Booth-Smith were singled out by angry candidates and aides for their role in the “cataclysmic defeat” that several sources claimed had been made worse by the early election decision.

Booth-Smith was handed a peerage in the dissolution honours list, while Dowden was given a knighthood. Both are said to have backed an early election, with Dowden described as particularly influential.

“Somewhere between 1,300 to 1,500 people lost their jobs last night,” said one senior Tory source. “The person who helped decide that this was the right time to do the election, Liam Booth-Smith, was included in the dissolution honours on the same night.” Dowden was also criticised by one figure for backing an election before playing little part in the election campaign itself. Another senior Tory adviser said simply: “Fuck that guy.”

Others defended the pair, stating it was “standard practice” for senior advisers and MPs to be rewarded. However, the blame game has started in earnest after a campaign that was criticised for repeated errors, from Sunak’s rain-soaked election announcement to his decision to leave D-day commemorations early. Insiders painted a picture of a despairing campaign in which the Tory HQ regularly struggled to find ministers to take to the airwaves. “That’s why you saw the same names,” said one party source. “Poor Mel Stride.”

There was an immediate outpouring of anger at the decision to call the election early once the result became clear. It included claims of widespread unease at the decision from across the cabinet, including Esther McVey, David Cameron and Chris Heaton-Harris. One source said the cabinet had been unable to influence the decision “in any way, shape or form”, as it had already been set in train. “There was too narrow a group of people – who don’t know anything about politics – advising the prime minister,” said one senior Tory. “These people have the temerity to think they’re political geniuses.”

While frustration boiled over after the dire result emerged, concerns were raised even in the hours after Sunak called the snap election. Officials warned that hundreds of candidates still had to be picked, while many MPs and their teams had already booked holidays. Plenty of candidates lacked the funds they needed to fight, meaning they were left with no real element of surprise.

“People had just oriented themselves towards November – everybody,” said a senior Tory source. “MPs, special advisers, ministers, campaign teams. Ask a random sample of MPs whether they had £20,000 in their campaign bank account, the answer is no.” In fact, some major donors – even those among the “leader’s club” class who regularly donate tens of thousands a year – did not chip in for the election effort.

“It was madness from the beginning,” said a source familiar with the cabinet discussions on an early election. “The polls had never really narrowed. Then there was a series of unforced errors in the campaign – and we were putting up these gimmicks like national service, which is not really going to attract people whatsoever.”

Another said that the lack of preparation led to the “mass exodus” of senior MPs, leaving the party with the task of finding new candidates, while losing the electoral boost that comes with incumbency. They also pointed to party chairman Richard Holden’s “undignified” decision to install himself into a seat 200 miles away from his abolished constituency as the ultimate example of a party caught on the hop.

Figures close to Sunak, however, remain adamant that they had little choice but to call the early poll, because of the high numbers of households that were having to remortgage each month. They said former prime minister Liz Truss was blamed “pretty much without exception” by householders for their higher costs. Meanwhile, an autumn campaign was seen in Downing Street as likely to hand Nigel Farage an even greater chance to exploit Channel crossings over the summer.

“If we’d have waited, Farage would have stood in Clacton,” said one Sunak ally. “But instead of the focus on Farage happening for five weeks, it would have been for four, five or six months. That’s in a context where you potentially have further boat crossings coming across the Channel. We thought it was best to go early – and I still think it was the best option now.”

Among Sunak’s team, there is fury at pollsters they accuse of overstating Labour’s lead and stopping key Tory messages from landing. Big Labour leads meant that an early “kitchen-sink strategy” of throwing new policies and tax cuts at voters was largely ignored as irrelevant.

“I’m convinced we should ban polls during campaigns,” said one campaign figure. “The reason we had to start talking about a supermajority was because in all our research, people just didn’t believe we were going to win. Three weeks out after the manifesto launch, it became evident and clear that nothing was really working because no one believed it would happen. That was a direct result of there being an MRP [multilevel regression and post-stratification] poll every day. Labour only won by 10 points in the end.”

But several senior Tories – even those who blamed Sunak for the decision to call a snap election – suggested the timing had made little difference to the result. “An insane night … Sunak will be hung out to dry for this,” said one. “But in reality, it’s the entire clown show that’s caught up with us.” Another former minister said the result was “not unexpected”, adding: “In reality this was lost in 2022. The loss of trust and reputation for competence has become ingrained.”

As well as the opprobrium flying around inside the Tory party after its defeat, some of those leaving Downing Street also believe they can sow the seeds of an early recovery – by learning from Keir Starmer. Rather than a major shift to the left or right, one said that just demonstrating “basic competence” could be enough to reassure people about the Tories, given the lack of enthusiasm for Labour.

“Labour is about to hit the same problem we had in 2019 – almost immediately after Brexit was delivered, our electoral coalition was no more. The thing that has brought voters in – getting rid of the Tories – will have been fulfilled immediately. How they maintain that voter base, when MPs are worried about Reform or Gaza, is not clear. We have to just show we’re not divided.

“It probably sounds bizarre and mad because we’ve just suffered a big election loss, but we’re quite optimistic. There is immediate disappointment, but under the surface, there is some optimism for the future. That’s the nature of the volatility we’ve seen.”

As the inquest gathered pace this weekend, it was all already too much for one minister who lost their seat, who was opting to disappear for the time being and not think about politics at all. “There will be lots of takes,” he said. “Almost all wrong.”

Very early on Friday morning, Liz Truss, a politician whose weapons-grade inability to read any room almost bankrupted the nation, appeared unable even to choreograph her own demise. The last minutes of her time in office as an MP were as clumsily inept as much of the previous 14 years of vapid careerism. To begin with, after a brief recount in her South West Norfolk constituency, her fellow candidates were kept waiting on stage for an age while, it appeared, the former PM was outside in a Range Rover with her expensive security detail presumably debating if she might stay behind the tinted glass and avoid the fatal moment for ever.

When she did finally appear through an unexpected side door, following a slow handclap, she stood with characteristic awkwardness to hear the fact that she had somehow, in five catastrophic years – or 49 fatal days – translated a 26,000 Tory majority into a 640-vote defeat. Her victorious Labour opponent, Terry Jermy, gave a heartfelt speech about his win, and the stage seemed set for Truss to offer some kind of response, or explanation, or at least the traditional thank you to tellers and supporters. She looked panicky for half a moment, perhaps with this thought in mind, before scuttling away ungraciously.

Afterwards I asked the velvet-breeched high sheriff who had conducted the announcement if Truss had indicated that she wanted to speak. “No,” he said. “I think she just wasn’t sure which way to get off the stage.”

In an election night overstuffed with Portillo moments – Shapps! Coffey! Mordaunt! Rees-Mogg! – this one provided the final and most fitting sense of closure to some of the least distinguished years in British political history. I happened to be staying for the count in King’s Lynn at a once-grand hotel in which Robert Walpole, the first prime minister and the longest serving, celebrated many electoral triumphs. The tenure of his shortest-serving successor ended in contrastingly banal surroundings, a couple of miles up the road, on the badminton courts of the Lynnsport leisure centre, a venue that might have featured in one of Alan Partridge’s fever dreams.

After successfully locating the exit, Truss gave the BBC her airy take on why she thought the people of Downham Market and Thetford and Swaffham and Methwold had rejected her, ending 60 years of untroubled Conservative victories in the constituency. You might have imagined her argument would be at least prefaced by some reference to the fact her emergency budget had sent the pound crashing to its lowest-ever level and created a £30bn black hole in the economy overnight, casting her as the least popular prime minister in living memory. Instead, of course, she doubled down on the rhetoric that fuelled her risible “comeback” book, Ten Years to Save the West: “The issue we faced as Conservatives was we haven’t delivered sufficiently on the policies people want. That means keeping taxes low, but also … things like the Human Rights Act that made it very difficult for us to deport illegal immigrants.”

It’s interesting to note that not even the Reform candidate in this election, an adult education manager for Norfolk council, Toby McKenzie, cites small-boat immigration as the first issue in his stealing 9,958 votes from Truss here. Instead he suggests that the MP was out of touch on local issues that mattered. “The big thing for me on the doorstep,” he said, “has been the megafarm that is planned near some of the villages here … an absolutely massive site for chickens and pigs. Liz Truss has failed to [campaign to] block it. We are talking thousands upon thousands of animals just a mile away from two villages. Imagine the stench. Pigs are bad enough. But chickens too. She was very much for it,” he said. Before adding, conspiratorially: “And word spreads in Norfolk.”

Truss’s defeat looked like a microcosm of the existential crisis that her party faced in this election and which will define it in the weeks ahead. Her vote was squeezed not only by the populist message of Farage’s party but also by remnants of the remainer centre-right that Truss so shamelessly abandoned after the EU referendum. One nation Tories have been all but purged from the parliamentary party, but there was a well-organised cell of that tradition that took some calculated revenge here.

Local landowner James Bagge (who has the kind of old-school name you hear pronounced three ways), a former army officer and barrister who worked for the serious fraud squad, has led the “turnip Taliban” opposition to Truss ever since she was fast-tracked into her safe seat by David Cameron in 2009. This time around, urged to run by fellow Old Etonian Rory Stewart, Bagge stood as an independent, trimming another 6,282 votes from her total by giving true blue constituents “a trustworthy place to go that wasn’t Labour or Reform”.

He was supported in the most urbane of guerrilla campaigns by those benign ghosts of Conservative past, Dominic Grieve and David Gauke. Bagge is pointedly unrepentant that he effectively helped Labour defeat Truss. He had been, he said, fighting above all for “what has gone [from the frontline party]: honesty, accountability, being genuine. One of the things that has undermined trust so badly is ministers endlessly coming on television and defending indefensible lies. And offering very simplistic solutions to intractable problems”.

Bagge is too polite quite to say so, but he is affronted by the way that Truss refused to attend the only hustings in the constituency, in the town hall at Downham Market, tweeting instead images of herself watching an England match in a local pub. Others have tales of her being hustled by her security out of a local chip shop when things got testy, and last week shouted out of the Whalebone IInn, a Wetherspoons, at breakfast time.

Her apparent inability to recognise that she may be among people whose mortgage payments she had trebled, and whose pensions she has hollowed out, was a source of baffled fascination to all her opponents.

In her campaign literature, without irony, Truss insisted that she was “running on her record in government”. For once, she was taken at her word.

Stormy Daniels’ supporters have raised more than $900,000 meant to help her move to a safe house and repay legal fees after testifying in the criminal trial that led to Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 felonies.

The money comes from an online GoFundMe campaign started by a friend and former manager of the adult film actor, who recently appeared on MSNBC and described how supporters of Trump have bombarded her with social media harassment as he seeks a second presidency, including threats to rape and murder her daughter and other family.

“It’s become unsafe for her family and her pets,” the fundraiser’s organizer, Dwayne Crawford, wrote on the page for the campaign, which set a goal of $1m. “Stormy needs help to relocate her family to somewhere they can feel safe and live on their terms.

“She needs assistance to be able to continue to pay the mounting fees so that Trump doesn’t just win because his pocketbook seems endless.”

The so-called I Stand with Stormy Daniels campaign – which had raised more than $940,000 from about 17,600 donors as of Friday – follows her key role in getting Trump convicted in late May on charges of falsifying business records.

Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about an extramarital sexual encounter that she has alleged to have had with Trump a decade prior to his 2016 presidential election victory. The payment to Daniels was falsely recorded as legal expenses, according to prosecutors, who ultimately won a conviction against Trump in a New York state courthouse with the help of testimony from Daniels.

The US supreme court on Monday held that presidents enjoy broad immunity from prosecution in connection with their actions in office – which should aid Trump substantially as he tries to defeat criminal cases pending against him on charges of improperly retaining classified records and of trying to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden.

One of the more immediate consequences of the supreme court’s ruling was for New York judge Juan Merchan to delay Trump’s sentencing in the case that ensnared Daniels. It had originally been scheduled for 11 July, but Merchan tentatively reset the proceeding for 18 September after the former president’s legal team asked him to delay it in light of the immunity decision.

Meanwhile, Daniels told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday that she had been inundated with Facebook messages threatening “to rape everybody in my family, including my young daughter, before they killed them”.

“I’ve lost … mostly my peace, mostly my daughter’s privacy, and time – time I’ll never get back with her,” Daniels said in reference to her participation in the prosecution against Trump.

She also detailed how she owed $500,000 in attorneys’ fees – which she could not afford to pay – over a civil defamation lawsuit that she filed against Trump in 2018.

Among those who expressed support for Daniels after her interview with Maddow was writer E Jean Carroll, who sued Trump over allegations of rape and defamation – and won nearly $90m in civil penalties from him. “I’d be happy to help!!” she wrote on X on Tuesday night.

But one of the voices to come out against Daniels was her former attorney Michael Avenatti, who remained imprisoned for defrauding her and other clients.

In a Wednesday post on X, he dismissed Daniels’ fundraising campaign as “GoFundMe grift” and “complete bullshit”, arguing that the alleged threats were not coming from Trump personally. Avenatti’s comments brought him his own detractors, with some X users accusing him of angling for a pardon from Trump in case he wins a return to the White House in November.

Crawford, the Daniels fundraiser organizer, wrote that he had been motivated to get involved after he and his friends were given “front-row seats to the parts of this story that don’t fit neatly into click-bait headlines”.

“If we allow Stormy, after choosing to stand up to the president of these United States, to lose her life, her liberty or her happiness, then we have failed at the very foundational core of what this nation was built upon,” Crawford added.

Joe Biden is pushing back against questions about whether he has the mental and physical stamina to serve another term is president, arguing, in a much-hyped Friday television interview, “I just had a bad night.”

In a pre-taped sit-down interview that aired on Friday evening, the 81-year-old president told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that he had been sick, exhausted, and had not prepared well for last week’s presidential debate with Donald Trump.

Biden’s performance was so poor that some Democrats, including Democratic members of Congress, are calling him to drop out of the race. But so far he has vowed to stay in the race.

Here are some key takeaways:

Reformist candidate Masoud Pezeshkian has won Iran’s runoff presidential election, beating hardliner Saeed Jalili by promising to reach out to the west and ease enforcement on the country’s mandatory headscarf law after years of sanctions and protests squeezing the Islamic Republic.

A vote count offered by authorities on Saturday morning put Pezeshkian as the winner with 16.3 million votes to Jalili’s 13.5 million after Friday’s voting.

Supporters of Pezeshkian, a heart surgeon and longtime lawmaker, entered the streets of Tehran and other cities before dawn to celebrate as his lead grew and victory became apparent over Jalili – a former nuclear negotiator close to Iran’s supreme leader.

Pezeshkian promised no radical changes to Iran’s Shia theocracy in his campaign and long has held the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as the final arbiter of all matters of state. But even Pezeshkian’s modest aims will be challenged by an Iranian government still largely held by hardliners.

The first round of voting on 28 June saw the lowest turnout in the history of the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution. Iranian officials have long pointed to turnout as a sign of support for the country’s Shia theocracy, which has been under strain after years of sanctions crushing Iran’s economy, mass demonstrations and intense crackdowns on all dissent.

Government officials up to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, predicted a higher participation rate as voting got under way, with state television airing images of modest lines at some polling centres.

However, online videos purported to show some polls empty while a survey of several dozen sites in the capital, Tehran, saw light traffic amid a heavy security presence on the streets.

More than 61 million Iranians over the age of 18 were eligible to vote, with about 18 million of them between 18 and 30. Voting was to end at 6pm but was extended until midnight to boost participation.

The late president, Ebrahim Raisi, who died in a May helicopter crash, was seen as a protege of Khamenei and a potential successor as supreme leader. While Khamenei remains the final decision-maker on matters of state, whichever man ends up winning the presidency could bend the country’s foreign policy towards either confrontation or collaboration with the west.

Many knew Raisi for his involvement in the mass executions that Iran conducted in 1988, and for his role in the bloody crackdowns on dissent that followed protests over the 2022 death of Mahsa Amini, a young woman detained by police over allegedly improperly wearing the mandatory headscarf, or hijab.

In April, Iran launched its first ever direct attack on Israel, while militia groups that Tehran arms in the region – such as the Lebanese Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthi rebels – are engaged in the fighting and have escalated their attacks.

Iran is enriching uranium at near weapons-grade levels and maintains a stockpile large enough to build several nuclear weapons, should it choose to do so.

The campaign also repeatedly touched on what would happen if Donald Trump won the November election in the US. Trump withdrew America from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018. Iran has held indirect talks with Joe Biden’s administration, although there has been no clear movement back towards constraining Tehran’s nuclear programme in return for the lifting of economic sanctions.

With Associated Press

Donald Trump is trying to claim he has “nothing to do” with Project 2025, a political roadmap created by people close to him for his potential second term.

The project, which is led by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative thinktank, seeks to crack down on various issues including immigration, reproductive rights, environmental protections and LGBTQ+ rights. It also aims to replace federal employees with Trump loyalists across the government.

Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social network: “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

The former president’s post came a day after the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, said the US was in the midst of a “second American revolution” that can be bloodless “if the left allows it to be”. He made the comments on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, adding that Republicans are “in the process of taking this country back”.

In response to Trump’s post, several critics were quick to point out that it appears unlikely that he is unaware of Project 2025, given that many individuals involved in the project are his closest allies.

“Many people involved in Project 2025 are close to Trump world & have served in his previous admin,” CNN’s Alayna Treene said.

Economist and Guardian columnist Robert Reich wrote: “Don’t be fooled. The playbook is written by more than 20 officials Trump appointed in his first term. It is the clearest vision we have of a 2nd Trump presidency.”

The Trump campaign has previously pushed back on claims that he would follow the policy ideas set out in Project 2025 or by other conservative groups. His campaign told Axios in November 2023 that the campaign’s own policy agenda, called Agenda47, is “the only official comprehensive and detailed look at what President Trump will do when he returns to the White House”, though the campaign added that it was “appreciative” of suggestions from others.

Still, Heritage claimed credit for a bevy of Trump policy proposals in his first term, based on the group’s 2017 version of the Mandate for Leadership. The group calculated that 64% of its policy recommendations were implemented or proposed by Trump in some way during his first year in office.

The Heritage Foundation also created the first Mandate for Leadership that heavily influenced Ronald Reagan’s administration in 1981.

The foundation claims that Reagan gave copies of the manifesto to “every member of his Cabinet” and that nearly two-thirds of the policy recommendations it laid out were either “adopted or attempted” by Reagan.