Annette Dittert: It’s bizarre that nobody’s talking about Brexit, or challenging Farage

For a German audience currently staring with disbelief at an upsurge of far-right populism on its own doorstep, the British elections are mostly a reminder of where the destructive cluelessness of populist politicians can lead a country. Nothing you want to look at too closely, when you are potentially just at the beginning of such a turn of events yourself.

But then there is something else. It’s not that Labour’s Keir Starmer is boring, as is often complained about here in London. (No, boring is good in Germany. It’s the ultimate German virtue.) The current mix of slight lack of interest and amazement in Germany stems from something different. It is the rather bizarre fact that nobody seems either able or willing to talk about what has happened since the 2016 referendum to leave the EU. Brex-omertà is a fascinating phenomenon, but one that is rather hard to explain in Hamburg or Berlin. It is a cliche, but we tend to acknowledge our problems, then try to develop strategies to fix them. This, however, is not what Britain generally, nor the Labour party specifically, has decided to do. And most of the UK media weirdly plays along.

This leaves the country with a big, problem that can’t be named, which increases the risk that past mistakes will be repeated. Seeing Nigel Farage re-emerge as the anti-establishment figure is surreal, to say the least. With some honourable exceptions, most interviewers are not willing to challenge Farage or break the Brexit taboo. Instead, they accept his deceitful narrative that he is (still) an outsider. They do not hold him to account for having used false claims and promises to lead Britain out of the EU. Instead they give him space to rant, again. It feels like a very British Groundhog Day.

The eerie silence around the issue seems even more absurd given that a large majority of British voters now regret Brexit. Those who would like it to be rectified have to hold their noses at the ballot box and hope Starmer is lying, or at least omitting parts of his plans for Britain’s future. If Labour does prove more radical in power than it currently appears – and to solve Britain’s economic problems it will have to be – others who vote Labour may feel they have been deceived.

Yet this is not a way to restore trust in politics so badly damaged by the populism of recent years. The total absence of a proper political debate on what has happened post-Brexit will also make it much harder for Labour when in office. Starmer might prove us all wrong and I genuinely hope he does, but seen from a continent that is just about to confront its own populist wave, his overly defensive tactics are hardly inspiring.

María Ramírez: The tone is more civil than in Spain but is filling potholes really a promise in a G7 country?

A few weeks ago, I interviewed James Hall, a British countertenor I once saw on Broadway playing Farinelli alongside Mark Rylance. He was on his final days of permitted work in the EU due to Brexit rules, and spoke about missing opportunities to sing around Europe, “maddening” bureaucracy and the sadness of British musicians who are no longer part of a “continental community”. Labour is promising to ease rules for touring musicians and Hall hoped things would change with Keir Starmer. But, talking to him, something seemed broken beyond immediate repair. The limited opportunities at home mean Hall is now singing less and seeking alternative employment as a teacher.

Sadness and cautious hope are common emotions I have found in my reporting from a UK on the cusp of a change that seems long overdue, considering how unusual it is to find voters declaring their support for the Conservatives.

The energy of “cool Britannia” which I covered over two decades ago is nowhere to be found. Promises are as underwhelming as the state of the public finances. I find it puzzling that filling potholes is an actual electoral promise of a national party in a G7 economy.

The tone of this election campaign is more civil, less polarised and more policy-based than what we see in Spain. At the same time, debate and interviews occur within a constrained framework of accepted truths: “net migration” is bad and everyone is tired of Brexit.

Pollsters and political experts keep telling me Brexit is no longer a main public concern as an explanation for why candidates and the journalists interviewing them talk so little about it.

Citizens may be tired of it, but my experience is that Brexit comes up in almost every conversation, especially when discussing broken Britain. No matter the topic, whether it is polluted water, a climate protest chorus, shady university donations, tomato shortages, high-speed trains or conspiracy theories on traffic filters: Brexit just comes up. When people learn that I am from Spain, they sometimes apologise to me as if the Brexit vote was an offence against European neighbours, even clarifying that they didn’t support leave. I take no offence, but I feel sorry for them.

Antonello Guerrera: Farage can smell blood. And Starmer should let his hair down

I have covered several election campaigns here in the UK and abroad, but I have never seen anything duller than this one. The Tories are destined to collapse after 14 tempestuous, sometimes scandalous years. Rishi Sunak, a pragmatic prime minister who toned down the hostile rhetoric and improved relations with the EU, has promised several tax cuts and more benefits for pensioners. Nevertheless, talking with voters along the campaign trail, a substantial chunk of the conservative base say they wouldn’t vote for the Tories this time, not even if they got their national insurance slashed by 70%.

The Labour party knows this well and has been playing it safe for two years. Labour invokes “change”, but there is no bold or inspirational promise. Just a pledge that they will be the good chaps, protecting Britain’s finances and restoring solidity and the country’s reputation.

At least Nigel Farage’s comeback to lead the Reform party has stirred things up, which tells us an awful lot about the state of the UK. Farage can smell blood.

To British friends and voters who advocate proportional representation, I always say: no system is perfect, but so far, first-past-the-post has saved your country from extremism or populist entities like the Five Star Movement in Italy.

I have travelled a lot along this campaign trail and find the British people have an overwhelming sense of disillusionment and fatalism. In Worcester, I met a young man, Muhammad Waleed, and he told me he was not sure if he would vote for Labour because he could not see real change coming. Jane, a GP and Conservative party member in Wiltshire, sounded hopeless: “The NHS gets less and less money.” Compared to other campaigns I have covered, this one has no room for dreams and big hopes, not least because the leaders sound either robotic or artificial.

Yet I travelled with Sunak to the G7, and I can assure you that he is way more entertaining and funny during informal chats than he appears in public. Recently, Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, said the same thing about her boss, Keir Starmer. It’s true, we live in a social media age where every little mistake goes viral and this petrifies both Sunak and Starmer. But if both let their hair down, showing more wit and a common touch, it would help them and British voters. Being natural and unpredictable has made the fortune of several controversial leaders, such as Boris Johnson, Silvio Berlusconi and Farage, despite the many flaws in their political records.

Tessa Szyszkowitz: The Austrian right is watching closely: will the Tories turn into a Trumpist party?

After Boris Johnson “got Brexit done”, feverish Austrian interest in Britain died down. When Brexit turned out to be what in Vienna we call a Rohrkrepierer (a dud), a tiny bit of shameful but quite delicious schadenfreude kept my readers going for a bit. But a medium-sized country with neither partners nor plans is only mildly newsworthy.

Now the general election has put the UK back in our news. For one, because Nigel Farage is back. Austrians, of course, like to know that their own far-right party is not the only one whose candidates entertain the public with eccentric views on Adolf Hitler. A Reform UK candidate who thinks the UK should have accepted Hitler’s offer of “neutrality”? Almost Austrian in spirit.

Farage is arguably a lesser threat to democracy than Austria’s far-right Freedom party. But he deserves our attention for a different reason: he could be hugely dangerous to the Tories. If the Conservative party needs a new leader after a painful defeat, the radicalised, populist right wing around Suella Braverman and Jacob Rees-Mogg could try to crown the Reform UK leader.

Will Brexit, the poisoned gift that keeps on giving, turn the Tories into a Trumpist party like the Republicans in the US?. Austrian conservatives are watching closely since they are still reeling from the legacy of their own baby Trump, Sebastian Kurz, whose forced exit in 2021 left them directionless.

I went to Stevenage to take the temperature in a bellwether constituency that first voted for Tony Blair’s Labour in 1997 and has been Conservative since 2010. In 2016, 60% voted for Brexit. Today, I found no one who still supported it. On the contrary, the town needs foreign workers. Especially big companies located there, such as Airbus. Voters feel betrayed by the government.

After 14 years voters are turning quite naturally away from those in power. That might have happened, with or without Brexit. And now the UK, having delivered the rightwing populist project Brexit, may now get a social democratic government just as most of its EU neighbours are battling the rise of far-right parties. These parties might not be campaigning to quit the EU, but they certainly plan to undermine EU institutions and replace genuine European cooperation with nationalism. Only in the UK is the tide going in a different direction. As a result, with Labour in power, the UK might become more pro-European than some of the actual member states. The irony is not lost on me.

Jakub Krupa: With Trump and Marine Le Pen focusing minds, Poles still care about who runs Britain

Perhaps the most striking aspect of Polish coverage of the UK elections is that there is so little of it.

Despite still being one of the largest economies in the world, a Nato ally, and home to as many Poles as some of the largest Polish cities, Britain has quite astonishingly disappeared from the news horizon. Donald Trump versus Joe Biden? Sure. Emmanuel Macron’s gamble in France? Up to a point. But the UK general election, not so much.

Some of that is due to Poland’s extremely polarised domestic politics. There is little bandwidth for international news other than the war in Ukraine and the Moscow-induced migration crisis on Poland’s eastern border with Belarus.

The all-but-certain change of government in London is seen primarily through that lens. Will Labour-led Britain still support a free and independent Ukraine and Nato’s defence of the eastern flank?

For all the criticism of Conservatives domestically, both Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak made the UK seem an important and reliable ally.

Some in Poland vaguely recall Labour’s ambiguous defence policy during Jeremy Corbyn’s years and want clarity on what, if anything, would change under Keir Starmer. Nothing? Great – there’s not much else to see here, then.

After the astonishment at the descent of the UK, once seen as a paragon of political stability and common sense, into utter chaos during the Johnson and Truss years, Poles have become so inured to unusual things happening in the UK that, paradoxically, the unusual no longer seems that unusual.

Brexit seems largely consigned to history, primarily seen as a cautionary tale for anyone thinking they could follow the same path. There is some surprise that despite growing signs of Bregret, there is little movement to reverse the decision. Similarly, the unexpected re-emergence of Nigel Farage as a political player and the almost existential challenge to the Conservative party are both noted, but mostly as political anecdotes or trivia.

Britain is no longer considered a tempting place to live. In fact, Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, recently even made a specific political point at Britain’s expense. On the 20th anniversary of Poland’s accession to the EU, he promised Polish GDP per capita would surpass Britain’s by 2029. “It’s better to be in the EU,” he declared.

There are still enough reasons for Poles to care about who runs Britain, particularly as the spectre of Trump and Marine Le Pen focuses minds on international affairs. However, the contrast with previous campaigns could not be starker.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

The blood-red tentacles of the beadlet sea anemone seem to wave underwater, beckoning to be touched. I reach out a finger. Caitlin Woombs, engagement officer for the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust (HIWWT), bounds over. “You know how it feels as if they’re sticking to you?” In fact, that’s the sensation of the anemone firing dozens of microscopic harpoons into your skin, in the vain hope that it can reel you into its gaping mouth, she says, flashing a broad grin.

Contemplating this miniature drama is a huddle of volunteers, crouched beneath Ryde Pier on the Isle of Wight. It’s an unexpected place to go searching for sea life, and yet it is abundant here. The pier is a veteran survey site in the Wildlife Trusts’ citizen science Shoresearch programme, a “long-term monitoring project that allows us to understand the wildlife on our shores, and track changes over time,” says Daniele Clifford, marine conservation officer at the organisation. The expedition in Ryde is one of 12 local intertidal surveys scheduled by the HIWWT for 2024, and one of hundreds more that are available to join countrywide each year, under the broader Wildlife Trusts network. Volunteers range in age and experience, and surveying is open to all.

Today’s group of 20-odd is a mix of Isle of Wight residents and others who have ferried across a roiling Solent sea to join in. Curiosity is what brought lifelong island resident Mike Davis here. “I must have been up and down that pier hundreds of times, and it never occurred to me what might be beneath it,” he says. Beside him, one of the pier’s enormous iron struts bristles with barnacles, sponges and oysters, the base tasselled with plush anemones. The surrounding sand is thick with sea lettuce and bladderwrack, strewn with cockles and clams.

In Sapzurro bay on the Colombia-Panama border, the blue land crab can be found scuttling around human infrastructure, burrowing in the nooks and crannies of the coastal settlement. The species, which can grow up to 15cm and ranges in colour from violet to bright cerulean blue, is considered critically endangered or vulnerable in this region, although it can be classed as invasive elsewhere. It traditionally lived in the region’s rich mangrove forests, many of which have now been urbanised – habitat loss that scientists have blamed for the crab’s decline.

But when scientists studied the distribution of the species around Sapzurro bay, they were surprised to find it was still thriving in areas where vegetation had been eliminated: crawling in pastures, banana and coconut plantations, and scurrying below concrete structures. While burrows in urban areas were fewer and smaller, it had successfully built homes along sewage canals and among houses.

A growing body of research is collecting data on species like this crustacean – threatened wildlife learning to thrive in urban spaces alongside humans.

“We often forget that we are dealing with living animals,” says José Marin Riascos, a marine ecologist at the Corporation Centre of Excellence in Marine Sciences of Colombia, who published the study on the blue land crab in April 2024. “They are not passive, they are active. If you change something, then they answer with another change.”

These findings also complicate the long-held idea that cities cannot be hotspots for animals and plants, and that conservation is something to do far away, in untouched places.

“We are assuming that when humans modify an ecosystem, the habitat for the biodiversity is lost,” says Riascos. That is not always the case, he says. In some contexts, “it is just changing”.

Broadly, cities have overwhelmingly negative impacts on wildlife. On average, if a region contains 100 species, only 25 would occur inside the city, and populations can be up to 92% smaller than outside the urban area. But the chunk of wildlife that remains includes some species that are actually doing better in cities than outside them. This group can offer useful insights about how animals can adapt – or not – to human spaces, but most importantly, how humans can adapt their cities to be more wildlife-friendly.

Studies have found 66 out of 529 bird species that live in cities are found only in urban areas. In Santo Domingo, in the Dominican Republic, threatened Hispaniolan parakeets hold their ground in urban green spaces and old buildings. Throughout North America, rounded, fluffy burrowing owls have found new burrows throughout the cities. Three endangered species of cockatoos in Australia – Baudin’s black cockatoo, Carnaby’s black cockatoo, and the forest red-tailed black cockatoo – have adapted to munching on urban pine plantations. In London, peregrine falcons have found mimics of tall trees in high-rise buildings.

“This is definitely something that we’ve ignored,” says Erica Spotswood, an urban ecologist at Second Nature Ecology + Design in California. In a 2021 study published in the Journal of Bioscience, she argues that cities could perform a variety of services for surrounding wildlife.

“We created cities in places that we like, along rivers, along the coast, in alluvial plains, at the bottom of valleys,” says Spotswood, and human preferences overlap with those of many species. This means cities also end up having a wide variety of types of habitats inside them, and a lot of diversity.

Urban spaces can be refuges during periods of stress and scarcity in the wild, providing easier access to an abundant diversity of resources year round. And cities can help species escape the threats animals face in the surrounding landscape – such as providing pollinators with refuge from pesticides systematically spread throughout agricultural land.

Studies have found that several different species of native bees are more abundant and more diverse in cities than in their surrounding landscapes, and that cities can be hotspots for some pollinators. “Bees are a great example,” says Robert Francis, professor of urban ecology and society at King’s College London. “The growing season for plants is extended in cities, so there are more plants over a longer period and the resources are really good.”

The smalltooth sawfish, once abundant in North American waters, is now thriving only in the urbanised coastal waters off South Florida, according to one 2020 paper. And studies show endangered western ringtail possums have found refuge in residential gardens across Australia, even when they have access to more rural areas.

When builders went to fill up an abandoned industrial site in Sydney to build a new stadium for the 2000 Olympics, they found the dirty water was filled with green and golden bell frogs – chunky, cartoonish-looking amphibians that are endangered across Australia.

“Everyone just thought it was a horrific, degraded urban site, but it turned out to be critical habitat for these frogs that were hanging on,” says Kylie Soanes, an urban ecologist at the University of Melbourne.

Like this frog, for “the vast majority” of threatened species found in cities, the city is their home range and humans built on top of it. But this also means the city is the last place that the species has a foothold – a category of animals that Soanes calls the “last chance species” – and so urban spaces are a crucial opportunity to protect and conserve them.

Doing so requires upending the assumption that cities cannot be places for conservation, she says, and recognising that they provide opportunities for intensive stewardship by people.

“Building a city and having places for people to live doesn’t mean we have to lose nature and wildlife – we can have both in the same place,” says Soanes. She points to growing more wildlife-friendly plants in private gardens, and sprinkling more wildlife-supporting infrastructure, such as bird nesting boxes, bee hotels and frog pondlets outside homes and around the city, “blurring the lines” between urban and natural.

In Brazil, the Programa Macacos Urbanos has built aerial wood-and-rope bridges across roads to help prevent monkeys electrocuting themselves by swinging on power lines. In the UK, manufacturers of building products have started making “swift bricks” – plastic bricks designed for swifts to nest in, and the roofs of bus stops have been converted into small patches of grass called “bee stops”.

“It’s just saturating the city with biodiversity friendly stuff: green space and green infrastructure,” says Francis, who lives in a housing estate with bat nest boxes built into some of the buildings. He notes, however, that it is still too early to know whether these small changes make significant differences to animal communities in cities, and at a large enough scale to support population growth over generations and repopulate all of the surrounding landscapes too, “or if it’s just a tiny, tiny difference”.

But, says Francis: “The research on cities lately has really transformed our understanding of urban ecosystems.”

Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on X for all the latest news and features

It was a humbler and wiser Germany that stepped from the turf here at full-time: euphoric after Niclas Füllkrug’s injury-time header, relieved at topping the group, but with perhaps a more realistic idea of where they are and what to expect from them. Like one of its mercurial intercity trains, Germany’s Euro 2024 journey stuttered and slowed here, even threatening an unscheduled diversion, but ultimately remaining raggedly on course.

And so in a way this was a kind of hazing: a stress test under laboratory conditions, with qualification already secure but a number of flaws that required the scrutiny of a strong Swiss side to expose. How would this team – which until recently was actually very bad – deal with its first big setback, its first indifferent crowd? How would that defence hold up against a team unafraid to run at them? And what happens if you really, really need a goal in the 91st minute?

The stats will show that Germany dominated possession 66%-34% and by 18 shots to four. In reality it was a far more even game than that, with Switzerland having a goal disallowed for offside and Granit Xhaka almost sealing the points late on with a rasping shot from distance. Murat Yakin’s side were sensational: salty when they had to be, slippery on the break, taking the lead through Dan Ndoye and seeing their lead all the way through to 90 minutes.

And so this goal was worth more than one Group A point to Germany. It averted a last-16 tie at Berlin’s Olympiastadion against – probably – their nemesis Italy, with perhaps England, France and Spain to follow. More importantly, it maintains the pleasant vibes around what has thus far been a tournament of discovery and growth.

The yellow card to Jonathan Tah is a nuisance, putting him out of the next game, and there will be a certain anxiety at the ease with which Switzerland were able to slice them open. But the skittish, desperate energy they displayed in the closing minutes will be as encouraging in retrospect as it was infuriating at the time: proof that Germany have multiple attacking threats, personality to burn and the sort of unstoppable momentum that turns half-chances into golden opportunities.

Füllkrug epitomised this, coming off the bench and again – as he did at the Qatar World Cup – proving the difference-maker. He now has six major tournament appearances, all as a substitute, a total of 139 minutes that have produced four goals. “It’s good luck and bad luck for him that he’s so good in that role,” Julian Nagelsmann said. “Yes, he has a chance to start. But Kai [Havertz] also has that chance. It depends what we need during a certain phase of the match.”

For Switzerland, Xhaka deservedly took away the player-of-the-match award for a stirring and brilliant night’s work. Playing further forward than he normally does for Bundesliga champions Bayer Leverkusen, Xhaka was the game’s disruptive force, its unreliable narrator. He hounded Toni Kroos all night, and even if Germany’s talisman still enjoyed 127 touches he was unable to do his usual damage in dangerous areas. “After this game, I hope everyone has a little bit more respect for us,” Xhaka said afterwards.

And perhaps Germany did underestimate Switzerland a little: not their quality so much as their intensity, their willingness to commit to the physical battle. Certainly as Xhaka pounced on Kroos’s casual pass to steal the ball from Jamal Musiala, setting Switzerland on a four-on-four attack, there was little immediate alarm in the German defence, even as Remo Freuler took the ball into the left channel and tried a hopeful cross. Ndoye’s volley was satisfyingly perfect: slammed into the roof of the net, the first real moment of jeopardy for Sommermärchen 2.0.

Nagelsmann waited until the hour before deciding he had seen enough. The surgical Maximilian Mittelstädt was replaced by the surging David Raum at left-back. Off came Robert Andrich, who had been denied a scorching first international goal in the first half by a Musiala foul. Off came Musiala and Florian Wirtz. On went Füllkrug, the Hoffenheim striker Maximilian Beier and Leroy Sané: an all-out frontal assault of pace and power, with the front five pushing up and tucking in Switzerland’s back five like a hotel bedsheet.

Finally, after a Havertz header against the bar and a miraculous block by Manuel Akanji on Joshua Kimmich, and no end of alarms at the other end, Nagelsmann and Germany got their moment of jubilee. Raum crossed; Füllkrug rose highest. The Frankfurt Arena rose with him, and amid the deafening din was a kind of affirmation: proof – if ever it were doubted – that this is Germany’s time.

And it really was looking pretty hairy there for a while. Now Denmark, Serbia and Slovenia will hold no qualms for them; England would be spicy, but this is a good time to play them. Above all, Germany can go into the knockout stages with the satisfaction of having been tested. It may not have been the result they wanted. But it may just have been the night they needed.

Scotland needed a win to secure a spot in the knockout phase of a major tournament for the first time, save some form of arithmetic cruelty. Hungary carried faint hopes of progress with a win here. The teams looked destined to play out a mutually unsatisfactory, ragged, scoreless draw until Hungary notched a 100th-minute winner. Put bluntly, neither team deserves a place in the last 16 based on this.

Scotland huffed and puffed. Hungary’s play generally broke down 25 yards from goal until stoppage time, when a basketball match broke out. Steve Clarke and the Tartan Army will be wounded by what transpired here but the harsh reality is over the course of three games they have looked short of the levels required. Scotland promised to have learned lessons from the Euros of three years ago. An identical points return, one, raises questions over that.

This match may be remembered in many quarters for the scenes involving Hungary’s Barnabas Varga. The forward was in obvious distress and was treated on the field with sheeting around him after taking a bad fall when trying to meet a cross in the 71st minute. He landed horribly. The incident dulled the atmosphere until Kevin Csoboth stroked in the winner. Varga was seen in the recovery position as he exited the field. The Hungarian FA later reported his condition as “stable” in a Stuttgart hospital.

It is always easy to overegg these occasions on the basis of recency bias. Yet this felt a genuinely significant moment for Scottish football. This was not simply because a team could march to where their predecessors could not but because there was legitimate belief around that scenario. This Scotland setup has captured hearts and minds.

This fixture was different to the previous two in Group A for Scotland because they could – and needed to – exert control. Germany trampled all over Clarke’s team. Switzerland looked technically superior to the Scots during the pair’s 1-1 draw. Hungary are ranked higher than Scotland and had enjoyed terrific pre-tournament form but this was an opportunity for those in navy blue to show they can play on the front foot. Scotland dominated the ball in the early exchanges before being warned of Hungary’s counterattacking menace as Angus Gunn scrambled away a long range shot from Bendeguz Bolla.

Clarke had kept the faith. He made just one change from the team who drew with the Swiss, as the injured Kieran Tierney was replaced by Scott McKenna. Marco Rossi, the Hungary manager, restored Barnsley’s Callum Styles to his midfield. Styles’s first intervention was to earn a booking for clobbering John McGinn. The ability of McGinn to win foul after foul was the most striking aspect of the first quarter. Otherwise, this was as taut and tense as it had been reasonable to expect. The next player to flatten McGinn, Willi Orban, saw yellow as well.

Scotland’s problem by the half-hour remained a lack of cutting edge despite possession statistics topping 70%. Roland Sallai had no such issues; the Hungary forward left Jack Hendry writhing in agony after standing on his chest. The Argentinian referee, Facundo Tello, deemed this an accident, which seemed fair enough.

The next stray boot almost triggered the opening goal. Ché Adams had been penalised for dangerous play, with Dominik Szoboszlai floating the resultant free-kick deliciously to the back post. Orban headed narrowly over. The VAR may have deemed Orban offside but Scotland had been reminded of Szoboszlai’s creativity.

The second period had to provide improvement, didn’t it? A tournament laced with exciting matches was suddenly bearing witness to a grim slog. At some stage, it seemed reasonable to assume shackles had to come off two teams for whom three points were essential. Even a shot at goal would constitute progress from the Scots. It arrived in the 53rd minute, Adams blazing over from 18 yards.

Scotland’s lack of potency had been similarly evident against the Swiss and Germans, hence two wild deflections from defenders had constituted their scoring tally. It is overly simplistic to blame Clarke for this; Scotland do not have much, if anything, by way of gamechanging threat in their ranks.

Varga had leapt for a Szoboszlai free-kick before the halt in play and obvious concern from teammates and opposition alike. Sheeting was still around the Hungary player as he was removed from proceedings. The Hungarian contingent had also displayed anger at how long it took medics to arrive on the field.

Clarke threw on what forward options he had as Scotland tried to snatch a precious lead. Lawrence Shankland, Stuart Armstrong and Ryan Christie entered the fray. Armstrong’s first involvement had him appealing in vain for a penalty.

Ten minutes of added time was the result of the Varga situation. As the board was raised, Gunn saved smartly from Szoboszlai. Shankland shot straight at Peter Gulacsi. Csoboth hit a Scotland post before, from one final counter, scoring from Sallai’s pass. Hungarian bedlam. Scottish devastation: again.

Rishi Sunak is facing a growing clamour to come clean about the betting scandal engulfing Westminster after a fifth figure was drawn into the row.

Senior Conservatives were among those calling for candidates and officials to be suspended pending the result of investigations, while the prime minister was urged to get a grip on the drip-drip of revelations.

Labour wrote to the head of the Gambling Commission on Sunday evening urging the watchdog to name those it has placed under investigation “in the public interest”, warning that “ongoing speculation … is casting a shadow over the election”.

The scandal has escalated since the Guardian revealed nearly two weeks ago that Craig Williams, who was Sunak’s closest parliamentary aide, is being investigated by the watchdog for betting £100 on a July election three days before Sunak surprised the country by naming the date.

After being approached for comment by this newspaper, Williams said he “put a flutter on the general election some weeks ago” and the following day said he had made a “huge error of judgment”.

Five people linked to Sunak or the Conservatives have been identified as being part of the watchdog’s inquiries so far. They include Williams; the Tory candidate Laura Saunders and her husband, Tony Lee, who is the party’s campaign director; and Nick Mason, the party’s data officer.

An unnamed Metropolitan police officer who is part of Sunak’s close protection security team has also been arrested in connection with the inquiry into bets placed on a July election.

The Sunday Times reported this weekend that Mason had made several dozen bets before Sunak announced the 4 July date, each of which was worth less than £100 but which would have brought cumulative winnings of thousands of pounds. A spokesperson for Mason said it would be inappropriate to comment during an investigation but that he denied wrongdoing.

The Met officer was arrested on 17 June after the force was contacted by the Gambling Commission. He is the only person to have faced disciplinary action so far, although Lee and Mason have both taken a leave of absence from their roles.

Pat McFadden, Labour’s national campaign coordinator, urged the commission’s chief executive, Andrew Rhodes, to “make available the widest possible information about how wide the circle spreads”.

In a letter to Rhodes, McFadden said it was “in the public interest that the Gambling Commission makes public the names of other figures you are investigating”.

A gambling industry source said hundreds of bets on a July election were referred to the watchdog across the sector after the Guardian’s revelations about Williams, but “very few” of those were by people flagged as being “politically exposed”.

There were reports on Sunday that the watchdog is investigating other individuals linked to the Conservative party or government.

Sunak is under pressure to formally suspend Lee and Mason and to withdraw support from Williams and Saunders, who would be Conservative MPs if elected.

Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, told LBC on Sunday: “Where you’ve got a police officer who’s been suspended, I think consistency should apply here.

“You’ve got employees and I’m sure there’s a mechanism which could allow their suspension, you’ve got candidates on the ballot paper – so it may be a matter for the whip to look at it once they’ve been elected and whether they take the Conservative whip, that might be a way to enforce discipline once elected.”

Anne Milton, a former Conservative MP and party whip, told Times Radio: “It confirms views about the fact that the Conservative party hasn’t upheld standards in public life. It’s not behaved well. There appears to be no leadership from the top.

“Suspension is the right thing to do while people are investigated. It’s harsh on people, if the allegations are found not to be true, but that is what would happen in any other sphere of work.”

Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the committee standards of public life, said the prime minister should be taking tougher action. He told the Guardian: “It’s right that he should because so far he has shown a lack of leadership. He keeps saying he’s very angry about it and doesn’t do anything. I would think that a minimum was to suspend them from their official roles in the Conservative party.”

In the Rochdale byelection earlier this year, Labour disowned its candidate over comments he had made about Israel and Jewish people. “I would have thought that it was similarly relevant for the Conservative party to do the same,” Graham said.

James Cleverly, the home secretary, told Sky on Sunday that he was “not in any way going to defend people who placed bets” but insisted it was only a “small number of individuals”.

Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, compared the row with the Partygate scandal. “It looks like one rule for them and one rule for us … That’s the most potentially damaging thing. The perception that we operate outside the rules that we set for others. That was damaging at the time of Partygate and is damaging here,” he said in an interview.

Sunak said last week he was “incredibly angry” about the allegations and that anyone who had broken the rules “should not only face the full consequences of the law but I will ensure that they are booted out of the Conservative party too”.

The Liberal Democrats called on Sunak to launch a Cabinet Office inquiry into the reports. Lib Dem deputy leader Daisy Cooper said: “This is now an all-out scandal at the heart of Rishi Sunak’s Conservative party.”

George Osborne, the former Conservative chancellor, told his Political Currency podcast earlier this month that about 40 people knew the date of the election in advance.

The Conservative party would not be drawn on whether more of its officials or candidates were under investigation. A spokesperson said: “As instructed by the Gambling Commission, we are not permitted to discuss any matters related to any investigation with the subject or any other persons.”

A Gambling Commission spokesperson said: “Currently the commission is investigating the possibility of offences concerning the date of the election. This is an ongoing investigation, and the commission cannot provide any further details at this time. We are not confirming or denying the identity of any individuals involved in this investigation.”

Gunmen opened fire in two cities in Russia’s north Caucasus region of Dagestan, targeting a synagogue, two Orthodox churches and a police post and killing at least six police officers and a priest, officials said.

In the city of Derbent, gunmen attacked a synagogue, home to a Jewish community in the predominantly Muslim region. Russia’s state media Tass said the attackers also shot at two nearby Orthodox churches, killing a police officer and a priest.

Footage published on social media from Derbent showed a group of gunmen engaged in heavy fire with police.

Officials said the Derbent synagogue was set on fire and a clip from the scene appeared to show flames coming out of the building, which is listed as a Unesco heritage site.

In a separate shooting occurring simultaneously, a group opened fire on police in Makhachkala, the capital of Dagestan, located about 75 miles north along the Caspian Sea coast. According to local authorities, at least one police officer was killed and six others injured.

A clip posted by Russian media from Makhachkala showed scenes of gunfire and a burned police vehicle.

The Russian interior ministry said in a statement that six police officers had been killed in the two shootings and 12 injured.

Officials in Dagestan appeared to confirm the shootings were linked.

“Tonight in Derbent and Makhachkala, unknown individuals attempted to destabilise the public situation. Dagestan police officers stood in their way. According to preliminary information, there are casualties among them,” Dagestan’s governor, Sergei Melikov, said on Telegram.

Russia’s investigative committee classified the shooting as a terrorist attack.

The motive of the shooters was not immediately clear. Russian media reported that two were killed by police.

Russia has experienced a series of Islamist terrorist attacks recently, prompting questions about whether its extensive security agencies have been distracted by the invasion of Ukraine and the internal crackdown on anti-war dissent.

In March, the Afghan branch of Islamic State, known as Islamic State Khorasan Province, claimed responsibility for the mass shooting at a Moscow concert hall, the deadliest terror attack in years, which left 139 people dead.

Last week, Russian special forces freed two guards and killed six men linked to IS who had taken them hostage at a detention centre in the southern city of Rostov.

Dagestan has also experienced a series of antisemitic incidents. Most notably, last year a mob stormed the airport in Makhachkala, searching for Jewish passengers arriving from Israel.

CCTV footage from Saturday shows the moment a Russian bomb hit a street in Ukraine’s second city of Kharkiv, narrowly missing a pedestrian. The video shows the person walking away after the blast only a few metres away. The latest strikes killed at least three people and wounded 52 more. Ukraine is struggling with a new wave of rolling blackouts after relentless Russian attacks on energy infrastructure

Over the last eight weeks, a jury in Massachusetts has pondered whether 44-year-old Karen Read murdered her boyfriend, a police officer, in an act of domestic violence, or was framed by corrupt authorities trying to cover up the killing.

Read’s trial has captivated Boston residents’ attention and triggered a wave of conspiracy theories far beyond the city. At the center is Read, a suburban woman who worked as an equity analyst, and her boyfriend, 46-year-old John O’Keefe, a veteran Boston officer who was found dead in the snow on 29 January 2022.

Prosecutors have charged Read with hitting O’Keefe with her sport-utility vehicle and leaving him to die in a snowbank. She has pleaded not guilty to charges including second-degree murder, manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of a deadly crash.

Jury deliberations could begin by Tuesday, after prosecutors rested their case and Read’s attorneys began presenting theirs.

For two months, prosecutors have relied on myriad expert witnesses to support their contention that Read was responsible for O’Keefe’s death. But the defense has countered with a tale of police corruption, maintaining that a tightly knit circle of law enforcement officials framed Read.

O’Keefe was found dead in front of the home of Brian Albert, a recently retired Boston police officer who had hosted a house party in the suburb of Canton.

According to prosecutors, Read dropped O’Keefe off at Albert’s house following a night of drinking at a bar, struck him with her Lexus SUV and then left him to die.

But Read’s lawyers have argued that their client went out to look for O’Keefe after realizing he never returned from the party. They have asserted that Read sought help from two other women, who helped her find O’Keefe’s body outside Albert’s home before they called the police.

O’Keefe was pronounced dead hours later, having sustained multiple head injuries – including a skull fracture and brain bleed – as well as hypothermia, according to investigators.

Prosecutors have pointed to forensic testing that showed strong matches among O’Keefe’s DNA, hair found on Read’s car bumper and DNA on its tail light. Tess Chart, a technology forensic DNA analyst, testified that according to mitochondrial DNA testing, she could say with 95% confidence that the hair found on Read’s car matched O’Keefe, CBS reported.

But Read’s attorneys have contested that evidence, with lawyer David Yannetti telling reporters: “It was planted on the vehicle – I mean, it was. You know the question is, how did that magic hair survive a 30-mile drive through a blizzard?”

Yannetti’s suggestions of police malevolence have received a boost from inappropriate text messages from the lead investigator in the case, Massachusetts state trooper Michael Proctor.

During his testimony earlier in June, Proctor acknowledged that he had called Read a “wack job” in text messages to friends, family members and his colleagues.

Proctor also admitted to texting his sister that he wished Read would “kill herself”, the Associated Press reported.

While on the stand, Proctor said that his text messages were a figure of speech, adding that “emotions got the best of me”. Despite apologizing for his language, Proctor maintained that his emotions did not influence his investigation into O’Keefe’s death.

Read’s lawyers insist the texts support their theory that closely related law enforcement officials framed their client.

Furthermore, during cross-examination by Read’s lawyers, Proctor acknowledged that he drank socially with Albert’s brother, Kevin Albert, a police officer from Canton. On the stand, Proctor testified that the two communicated about coordinating aspects of the case even though the Canton police department recused itself from the case, the Associated Press reported.

The first witness called by the defense on Friday was a snowplow driver who reported having seen “nothing” when he passed Albert’s house at about 2.45am the day O’Keefe was found. The snowplow driver, Brian Loughran, added that he did not see anything upon driving past the house again half an hour later, according to his testimony.

For their part, prosecutors have called on multiple first responders who reported hearing Read repeatedly say “I hit him” when asked what happened to O’Keefe. Among them was the Canton firefighter Timothy Nuttall.

Canton police officer Steven Saraf also testified that he recalled Read as being visibly upset. “This is my fault, this is my fault. I did this,” Saraf recalled Read saying, adding that she also asked multiple times: “Is he dead?”

Read’s legal team has asserted that she asked “Did I hit him?” rather than confess to having done so – and that the first responders misheard her.

Complicating the complex case even more are conspiracy theories that have been given air by social media users.

Aidan Kearney, a blogger with the moniker Turtleboy, has become a central spectator of the trial, frequently covering the case’s developments on his website TB Daily News, and rallying supporters behind Read.

According to an affidavit reported by CBS, Kearney and Read shared 189 phone calls in 2023, in addition to having communicated through the encrypted messaging app Signal.

Authorities charged Kearney in October with six counts of witness intimidation and one of conspiracy with respect to Read’s case. He has maintained his innocence while being ordered to stay away from those he allegedly has intimidated.

After Kearney’s arrest, the Norfolk district attorney, Michael Morrissey, condemned the “absolutely baseless” alleged harassment of witnesses in the case, saying: “Conspiracy theories are not evidence.”

A grand jury then indicted Kearney on 16 new charges in December, including eight counts of witness intimidation, three counts of conspiracy and five counts of picketing a witness.

“It’s clear that Mr Kearney is encouraging his minions, his followers, in the context of his blogs and YouTubes, et cetera, to continue to harass witnesses,” special prosecutor Kenneth Mello contended, according to CBS.

Read’s side is scheduled to resume presenting its case on Monday. She faces life imprisonment if convicted of murdering O’Keefe.

Associated Press contributed reporting