Zack Polanski's sweary, brash and blunt victory video on social media said everything about how the Green Party of England and Wales is under new leadership.

His landslide victory is the latest case study in how the political kaleidoscope between and within political parties has been given another colourful shake.

Disillusionment with those parties perceived as part of the establishment, whatever that is and however people choose to define it, has been a headache first for the Conservatives and now for Labour.

But it has been a boon for the plenty of others spared that perception, across the political spectrum.

The challenge for Labour in particular, already under the cosh from Reform UK and Nigel Farage, is they now confront a cacophony of blunt-speaking, digitally-savvy communicators to their Left – Jeremy Corbyn, Zarah Sultana and Zack Polanski among them – nibbling away at an already shrivelling supporter base.

If we then add in the Gaza independents in Parliament and those beyond who one day hope to join them, that attrition to Sir Keir Starmer's coalition goes further.

But Polanski's triumph isn't without challenge for the Greens, or the wider Left.

Could they end up cannibalising each other's support?

In no time after Polanski's victory, the former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had publicly heaped praise on him.

The new Green leader reciprocated with public praise for Corbyn on Radio 4 shortly afterwards.

But could they end up falling out?

The former Labour leader and the former Labour, now independent MP Zarah Sultana are in the process of setting up their own party and on the face of it Polanski's Greens and this new outfit could be chasing the very same voters.

Maybe they can collaborate, but the potential for awkwardness isn't difficult to spot.

Where does all this leave the Green Party?

It is a party that has long leant Left, but whose current parliamentary coalition takes in parts of Suffolk and Herefordshire, the seats of Polanski's vanquished rivals.

Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns, in tone, style and emphasis personify the previously big C and still small C conservatism of their patches.

How might folk there react to the sweary bluntness and brash left-wingery of the Green's new front man?

After a record-breaking general election result last year, in which they assembled a sufficiently broad coalition of support to win parliamentary seats in Labour-facing urban patches and Conservative-facing rural ones, are they now dispensing with that delicate balance?

Outwardly, the answer to that appears to be yes and that worries some in the party.

Perhaps a punchily-delivered message can deepen their support in some places.

But will it narrow their potential in others?

Let's see.

Former UK deputy prime minister Sir Nick Clegg has accused right-wing US politicians, including JD Vance, of "rank hypocrisy" for attacking UK speech laws while silencing dissent at home.

Since coming to office this year, the US vice president has repeatedly criticised measures like the UK's Online Safety Act and claimed free speech in Europe was "in retreat".

Sir Nick accused Vance of an "outrageous double standard" for attacking UK free speech laws while trying to "intimidate and bully" critics.

The ex-Lib Dem leader, who until last year was Mark Zuckerberg's deputy at Meta, warned Silicon Valley's ties with the Trump administration were starting to look like "Chinese-style cooperation".

In February, Vance used his first international speech since taking office to berate close US allies over immigration and speech laws.

During his speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vance cited the conviction of a British army veteran for silently praying outside an abortion clinic as proof that "basic liberties of religious Britons" were under threat.

Speaking to BBC Newsnight, Sir Nick said he "cannot stand the rank hypocrisy" of senior right-wing American politicians "flying first class or by private jet over to the United Kingdom and declaring that somehow there is excessive censorship in the UK and then flying back to the US to basically intimidate and bully and cow their own opponents".

He said the behaviour of many in the Trump administration "is flagrantly contrary to American principles of free expression".

Asked if he included JD Vance among these figures, Sir Nick said: "That includes them all.

"I think it is an outrageous example of double standards."

Yet Sir Nick warns the UK is "over-censorious" online, citing police making 30 arrests a day for offensive posts.

He warns crackdowns on online "speech that is offensive, unpleasant, vile" but not illegal open the door to political abuse.

"Part of the definitions of living in a free society is that you can say things that are offensive and other people violently disagree with," Sir Nick said.

Over-censoring offensive but legal speech empowered figures like Nigel Farage who "will get more of a hearing the more imprecise these boundaries are".

At the same time, he said age verification rules in the Online Safety Act aimed at preventing young people from encountering harmful content "did not go far enough".

The former Liberal Democrat leader, who served as deputy PM to David Cameron in 2010's coalition government, swapped Westminster for Silicon Valley after losing his Sheffield Hallam seat to Labour in the 2017 general election.

In 2022, he was promoted to a senior role by Zuckerberg, with responsibility for policy as well as communication and a reported bonus of £10m on top of his £2.7m annual salary.

But he left the company in January just weeks before Donald Trump returns to the White House after the president repeatedly accused Meta and other platforms of censorship and silencing conservative speech.

Sir Nick used his Newsnight interview to attack Silicon Valley's relationship with Donald Trump, which he said was starting to look like "Chinese-style cooperation".

Tech firms were beginning to resemble the "politically directed companies of China," he argued, despite their criticism of Chinese authoritarianism.

Seeing tech bosses like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mr Zuckerberg line up behind Donald Trump at his inauguration in January was "one of the reasons where I thought probably it's time to move on from Silicon Valley".

"Private sector enterprise and ingenuity and innovation thrives best when it's kept at a certain sort of arm's length from politics and politicians," he added.

Sir Nick, who is promoting his forthcoming book How to Save the Internet, said: "There's only one thing worse than having politicians and business people at each other's throats - it's having them in each other's pockets."

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.

Cardi B was cleared of assault by a Los Angeles jury after a security guard sued her for $24 million in a fingernail attack.

Emani Ellis alleged that the US rapper cut her cheek with a 3in (7.5cm) fingernail and spat on her outside an obstetrician's office in 2018. The rapper was pregnant at the time, which wasn't public knowledge.

The civil trial in Alhambra led to a series of viral moments as the rapper took the stand and offered colourful testimony about the incident and her fashion choices.

She told the court that the guard followed her and filmed her on her phone and wouldn't give her space or privacy. Ms Ellis, though, said it left her "traumatised".

The jury took only about an hour to clear the Grammy-winning rapper of the allegations of assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as negligence and false imprisonment.

The case revolved around Cardi B's obstetrics appointment, when she was four months pregnant with her first child. The office closed for the day to shield her privacy, as her pregnancy was not publicly known.

Cardi B acknowledged to the court that she and Ms Ellis had a profanity-laden shouting match after she showed up to the doctor's appointment. She said it was very heated - but she denied ever touching the guard or spitting on her.

The rapper testified about that day, telling the court that when she stepped out of an elevator, Ms Ellis, who was working as a security guard in the building, told someone on the phone about her appointment for a pregnancy that wasn't yet public knowledge.

• 'Which one is your real hair?' Why Cardi B's wigs and nails baffled lawyers in court
• Cardi B denies scratching and spitting on security guard

The performer, whose real name is Belcalis Marlenis Almánzar, added that Ms Ellis appeared to record her on her phone and refused to "back up", before a face-to-face "verbal altercation" ensued.

She admitted shouting an obscenity at Ms Ellis while telling her to "get out of my face".

Her lawyer noted how the star had "feared for her unborn baby" and hadn't discussed the news of her pregnancy publicly yet.

Her case was bolstered by testimony from the doctor she was there to see and his receptionist - Tierra Malcolm - who rushed between the arguing women in an attempt to break up the fight.

Ms Malcolm testified that Ms Ellis was the aggressor and that the security guard was swinging her arms in an apparent attempt to hit Cardi B, which resulted in a cut on Ms Malcolm's head.

Cardi B's testimony went viral as she changed wigs and outfits each day of the trial - the length of her fingernails becoming a focus multiple times in the case.

During closing arguments, Cardi B wore a black and white polka dot suit with a red bow, her black hair tied up.

Since this is not a criminal case - but a civil one - the jury had been asked to decide if Cardi B should be held liable for injuring Ms Ellis and, how much, if anything she should pay the security guard for pain and suffering.

Cardi B testified that she's being sued for $24 million and that Ms Ellis was looking for a payout. Ms Ellis' attorney in closing arguments said that it was up to the jury to decide a dollar amount to compensate Ms Ellis.

Ultimately, the jury cleared the rapper entirely in the case.

Outside the courthouse in Los Angeles County, a handful of fans showed up to support the rapper.

Christine Orozco who lives near the court showed up with a hand drawn sign that read, "If the nail don't fit, u must acquit," a pun referencing another Los Angeles celebrity trial - that of OJ Simpson, where the gloves, not the fingernails, were a subject of debate. She said Cardi B read the sign and laughed.

"She had a round tip that day, not a sharp tip," Ms Orozco said of Cardi B's fingernails. "She read the sign. She was squinting to see it. She laughed."

Tens of thousands of protesters, in capital cities across Australia, took to the streets on 24 August to advocate for Palestinians, condemn the Israeli government for their actions in Gaza, and urge their own government to respond more strongly to the devastation unfolding there.

They were reinforcing pressure that had been well-established weeks earlier, on 3 August, when a colossal gathering marched across Sydney Harbour Bridge in one of the largest political demonstrations ever held in Australia.

A lot had changed since then, diplomatically speaking. Between them, the protests bookended a month in which Australia-Israel relations nosedived to an all-time low – a spectacular falling out that has seen officials' visas cancelled, vitriol spouted in both directions, and claims and denials of Israeli "intervention" in Australia's political affairs following the expulsion of Iran's ambassador.

Many demonstrators on 24 August, however, were still calling for the same things – sanctions against Israel; the end of a "two-way arms trade" that sees Australia supplying parts used in Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) weaponry.

And while Australia-Israel relations appear to have shifted in recent weeks – "It really is quite a change," one expert told the BBC - exactly how much is a subject of debate.

How we got here

This week, the world's leading association of genocide scholars declared that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, as per the legal definition laid out in the UN convention.

The report by the International Association of Genocide Scholars noted the widespread attacks on both the personnel and facilities needed for survival - including in the healthcare, aid, and educational sectors - as well as the 50,000 children killed or injured by Israel.

Israel said the report was based on "Hamas lies", and has consistently denied carrying out genocide in Gaza.

This comes as the IDF expands its operation – launching a massive assault on Gaza City despite widespread international and domestic opposition – and the primary UN-backed global hunger monitor confirms a famine in the territory.

More than half a million people are facing "catastrophic" conditions characterised by "starvation, destitution and death", the monitor said last week, noting that the situation is "entirely man-made", with aid organisations accusing Israel of the "systematic obstruction" of food entering the Gaza Strip.

Such developments, coupled with growing public outrage, seem to have precipitated a change of tone from the Australian government.

Days after the Sydney Harbour Bridge march, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese followed the UK, France and Canada in announcing that Australia would conditionally recognise a Palestinian state.

Albanese later told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) that the decision was partly motivated by a phone call with Netanyahu that made it clear the Israeli prime minister was "in denial" about the situation in Gaza.

In Australia, the move drew backlash from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups.

Amal Naser, a third-generation Palestinian refugee, called it a "distraction".

"We need much more from the Australian government for them to satisfy their obligations under international law," Ms Naser, an organiser with the Palestine Action Group (not affiliated with the UK-based group Palestine Action) which arranged the protests on 3 and 24 August, told the BBC following Albanese's pledge to recognise Palestine.

She described the Australian government's overall response as "nowhere near proportionate to the situation at hand".

"I don't object to [their pledge to recognise a Palestinian state], but I don't support it either," she said. "The Australian government have not taken any material measures to comply with our international law obligations."

Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive officer of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, similarly said that he was "bitterly disappointed" by Albanese's announcement – though for different reasons.

"After the announcements by the British, the Canadians and the French, we thought it was pretty imminent. But it still came as a body blow to the community," he said, characterising the move as "gesture politics that really undermines the actual cause of peace on the ground".

"From all my conversations with ordinary members of the [Jewish] community, up and down the country... there's a great frustration with the government," he added. "It's clearly a low point in nearly 80 years of diplomatic relations between the countries."

Perhaps the strongest response, however, came from Netanyahu himself.

On 18 August, the Israeli prime minister wrote a letter to Albanese in which he accused him of pouring "fuel on this antisemitic fire" and described Australia's planned recognition of Palestine as "appeasement" towards Hamas.

The comments echoed earlier rebukes levelled at the UK, France and Canada, whom Netanyahu accused of siding with "mass murderers, rapists, baby killers and kidnappers" in their calls for Palestinian statehood.

But in Australia's case, things went further.

The same day that news broke of Netanyahu's letter to Albanese, Australia's home affairs minister, Tony Burke, confirmed that far-right Israeli politician Simcha Rothman – a member of Netanyahu's coalition – had been denied entry into Australia ahead of an upcoming "solidarity tour".

Israel in turn revoked the visas of Australian representatives to the Palestinian Authority, the internationally-backed governing body of the Palestinians, which is based in the West Bank.

The day after, on 19 August, Netanyahu ramped up his rhetoric against Albanese, describing him as a "weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia's Jews". Two days after that, in an interview with Australia's Sky News, he claimed Albanese's record would be "forever tarnished" by the decision to recognise a Palestinian state.

Albanese dismissed Netanyahu's rebukes, telling reporters he does not "take these things personally".

"I treat leaders of other countries with respect, I engage with them in a diplomatic way," he said.

But Burke responded with stronger language, telling the ABC that Netanyahu was "lashing out".

"Strength is not measured by how many people you can blow up or how many people you can leave hungry," he said.

Why now?

The public row has sunk Australia-Israel relations to a nadir.

Ian Parmeter, a research scholar at Australia National University's Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies who spent decades working across Australian government departments, says he's never seen the two countries' relations in a worse state.

As he puts it: "Australia has generally had a very pro-Israel foreign policy."

"This is language I haven't heard from an Australian prime minister talking about Israel in all my time working on foreign policy issues," he told the BBC.

In the aftermath of Hamas's 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, which killed about 1,200 people and saw 251 others taken hostage, Australia remained steadfast in its support of its democratic ally – expressing solidarity, insisting on Israel's right to defend itself and resisting calls to censure it despite mounting civilian death tolls.

In the time since 7 October, almost 62,900 people have been killed in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

Mr Parmeter suggests that Australia's recent change of tack was likely motivated by two major factors: Netanyahu's denial of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and his escalation of plans to seize control of the entire territory.

Another, he adds, would have been the Sydney Harbour Bridge march, which "made clear that there was a very strong mood among the Australian people for the government to do something – even if it was symbolic".

What has actually changed?

Pro-Palestinian advocates, however, believe that the Australian government's increasingly frosty approach to Israel is little more than empty symbolism, and the falling out between the two governments merely a diplomatic melodrama that conceals a controversial alliance.

Protesters on 3 and 24 August put forth specific demands of the "something" that they wanted the Australian government to do. But prominent voices within the pro-Palestinian movement note that, behind the scenes, the situation is largely business as usual.

"[We had] one of the largest marches in Australian history, with the clear demand to sanction Israel and end the two-way arms trade," Ms Naser said, echoing calls made by numerous human rights groups including Amnesty International. "I think the Australian government has had to make an urgent move to essentially appease the masses. But they haven't gone far enough."

Australia supplies parts used in Israel's F-35 fighter jets, which Israel has used in operations in Gaza – most notably, the mechanism that opens the aircraft's bomb-bay doors, which is not manufactured by any other country.

The Australian government denies allegations that it supplies arms to Israel, with foreign affairs minister Penny Wong arguing that they only supply "components and parts that are non-lethal in nature" - though by the UN definition this still counts as part of the arms trade.

Against that backdrop, some in the pro-Palestinian camp are questioning the sincerity and efficacy of the Australian government's posturing towards Israel.

Other demands from pro-Palestinian activists include stronger Australian sanctions on Israel - to date, the government has imposed financial and travel sanctions on two far-right Israeli ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich - and the expulsion of Israel's ambassador from Australia.

Instead, the Australian government last week took action that Israel applauded: ordering Iran's ambassador to leave the country based on allegations that the Iranian government directed antisemitic attacks in Sydney and Melbourne.

Intelligence services linked Iran to an arson attack on a café in Sydney in October last year, and another on a synagogue in Melbourne in December, Albanese told a press conference. It is the first time Australia has expelled an ambassador since World War Two. Iran has "absolutely rejected" the allegations.

Israel, meanwhile, took credit for the move, with Israeli government spokesperson David Mencer suggesting that it was prompted by Netanyahu's "forthright intervention" and criticisms.

"The relationship between this country and Australia was damaged, and so it's welcome that after Prime Minister Netanyahu's timely intervention that these actions have been taken by Australia's government," Mencer told reporters.

The Australian government has dismissed the suggestion that Israeli interference played a role, with Burke, Australia's home affairs minister, telling the ABC it was "complete nonsense".

The incident highlights the diplomatic tightrope that Australia is struggling to walk.

On the domestic front, discontent about Australia's position towards Israel continues to simmer on both sides - while experts suggest that the diplomatic spat is unlikely to have a lasting impact in either country.

"The actual statistics don't indicate that this is a major relationship for us," Mr Parmeter says. "Does Australia lose much? Not really at this stage.

"I have no doubt that all of this will eventually be healed, because the human ties between Australia and Israel are strong."

Additional reporting by Tiffanie Turnbull

Donald Trump has rejected suggestions that the warming of relations between China, Russia and their allies poses a challenge to the US on the global stage.

The US president told reporters in the Oval Office that he had "a good relationship" with President Xi Jinping and that China "needs us more than we need them".

It comes as Xi prepares to host world leaders at a "Victory Day" parade in Beijing on Wednesday - a showcase of China's military might.

Xi will be joined by North Korea's Kim Jong Un and Russia's Vladimir Putin, viewed by some observers as a message to the Western nations that have shunned them.

• Russia's Putin hails 'unprecedented' ties with China at talks in Beijin
• North Korea's Kim arrives in Beijing with daughter

China has sought to position itself as a possible counterweight to the US since Trump's tariffs rocked the global economic and political order.

Trump has pitched his tariffs as essential to protecting American interests and industry. It appears that any diplomatic cost is something he is willing to pay.

Asked by the BBC if he believed Beijing and its allies were attempting to form an international coalition to oppose the US, Trump said: "No. Not at all. China needs us."

He added: "I have a very good relationship with President Xi, as you know. But China needs us much more than we need them. I don't see that at all."

Separately, in a radio interview on Tuesday, Trump said he was not concerned about the axis forming between Russia and China.

He told the Scott Jennings radio show that America has "the most powerful military forces in the world" and that "they would never use their military forces against us".

"Believe me, that would be the worst thing they could ever do," he said.

Elsewhere in the interview, Trump said he was "very disappointed" in Putin, after they failed to reach a peace deal for Ukraine during their meeting in Alaska last month.

"I'm very disappointed in President Putin, I can say that," Trump said, adding that the US "will be doing something to help people live" in Ukraine. He did not specify.

China has not criticised Putin's full-scale invasion and has been accused by the West of aiding Russia's war effort through its supply of dual-use materials and purchases of Russian oil. Beijing denies this.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia was engaged in a new troop build up along certain sectors of the frontline.

"[Putin] refuses to be forced into peace," Zelensky said in his nightly video address.

Kim Jong Un's arrival in China for his first ever multilateral meeting was always going to make headlines.

But it was the smartly-dressed girl standing just behind him as he exited his armoured train which caught Korea watchers' attention: Kim Ju Ae, the North Korean leader's daughter.

According to South Korea's spy agency, Miss Kim is her father's most likely successor.

But details - including her exact age - are thin on the ground. So what exactly do we know?

Miss Kim has, for a number of years, been believed to be the second of Kim Jong Un's and his wife, Ri Sol-Ju's, three children. The exact number, and their order, is by no means certain however: Kim is very secretive about his family, only introducing his wife to the public after they had been married for some time.

Kim Ju Ae is their only child whose existence has been confirmed by the country's leadership. No other child has been seen in public.

News of her existence first emerged through an unlikely source: the basketball player Dennis Rodman, who revealed to The Guardian newspaper back in 2013 that he "held their baby Ju Ae" during a trip to the secretive state.

Little was then heard about her until November 2022, when she appeared alongside her father at the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

By February the next year, she was appearing on postage stamps and attending banquets for top officials - described as Kim Jong Un's "respected" daughter.

The adjective "respected" is reserved for North Korea's most revered. In her father's case, he was referred to as "respected comrade" only after his status as future leader was cemented.

South Korea's National Intelligence Service (NIS) provided lawmakers with a few extra details on the little girl at around the same time, according to news agency AP.

They said she enjoyed horse riding, skiing and swimming, and was home-schooled in the capital Pyongyang. They suggested she was around 10 years old.

By January 2024, the NIS had come to another conclusion: that the little girl was the "most likely" successor to Kim Jong Un - although they noted there were "many variables" still in play, not least because of her father's young age.

Since then, she has appeared by her father's side on numerous occasions. Standing next to him at ICBM launches and military parades, she has taken centre stage and received military salutes from senior military commanders.

But Tuesday marked the first time she has been seen outside North Korea, and the trip is likely to further fuel speculation she may succeed her father.

The Kim family, who have ruled North Korea since 1948, tell citizens they hail from a sacred bloodline, meaning only they can lead the country.

However, there is speculation that Kim has introduced his daughter at this point to try to overcome prejudice in the deeply patriarchal state, which has never been led by a woman.