PM is seeking a few quick wins to guarantee he is remembered for at least a short while after he resigns

Whatever you do, don’t mention the L-word. The official line from Downing Street is that Keir Starmer will remain prime minister for the next 10 years. Possibly longer. In the course of which he will be beatified by the pope, pick up the Nobel peace prizes that Donald “I wuz robbed” Trump should have won, will find a cure for cancer and lead the country into a new age of prosperity. The greatest UK leader of any age. Someone who makes Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher look second rate. A man who can even get Tony Blair to stop talking about himself.

Only that’s not quite the way it looks to the rest of us. What we see is a man who senses his time is running out. He’d hate you to notice, but Keir is after a few quick wins to cement his legacy. To guarantee he is remembered for at least a short while after he resigns.

Yes, it’s a documentary on a sobering topic. But when you’ve got an endless stream of blockbuster names spouting irresistible gossip – plus Nigel Farage being a total panto dame – you can’t help but have a ball

Let’s get one thing straight immediately: no documentary about Brexit should be this much of a hoot. The dread many felt when the referendum result came in – a fear that reactionary populism was on the rise and Britain was entering an era of managed decline – has only bloomed like mould in the intervening decade. Brexit was the source of much inadvertent comedy, of course, but to see it treated so irreverently en masse does leave a bit of a bad taste. Laughing at a YouTube compilation of politicians accidentally saying breakfast instead of Brexit? Fine. Chortling along with Nigel Farage as he reminisces about tensions between Dominic Cummings and Arron Banks? Tittering as Boris Johnson blathers about losing a tennis match to David Cameron during which the prime minister tried to secure his support for remain? No thanks.

Still, there is something extremely difficult to resist about Brexit: A Very British Civil War, a talking head-heavy chronicle of the period between the 2015 general election and the referendum itself. Rather than get bogged down in po-faced sincerity or hand-wringing about integrity (like the remain campaign!), it deals almost exclusively in attention-grabbing bombast (like the leave campaigns!). From the off we’re blasted with Brexit-flavoured juice. Vote Leave bosses “didn’t really want to win”, says Farage. Johnson’s position had “nothing to do with the EU,” says George Osborne. “It was Game of Thrones.” Johnson denies this, stifling a smile. “Everybody says I did this in order to be PM. I would have become prime minister anyway.”

Recent exchange of missiles between Iran and Israel highlights diverging views between US president and Israeli PM

The latest eruption of hostilities between Iran and Israel appears to have been contained for now after Donald Trump insisted he called “all the shots” in the Middle East, but in a dangerously fragile region Benjamin Netanyahu has again shown he is ready to take shots of his own.

The exchange of missiles on Sunday and Monday was ample demonstration of the inherent instability of the current limbo between war and peace, but it also shone a bright light on the complex and conflicted relationship between the US president and the Israeli prime minister, frenemies who could determine the fate of the current ceasefire.

We are in dangerous territory as courts encourage jurors to discern untruth from body language. In fact, the words are far more revealing

Imagine you are a juror on a murder trial. A married couple have been found shot dead. The defendant, a man known to them, denies the charge. You’ve heard the prosecution’s evidence and you’ve heard his testimony. But you and your fellow jurors are unsure if you should believe his protestations of innocence. At the hotel in the evening, another juror makes a novel suggestion: contact the spirits of the dead couple to find out if the defendant is lying. In agreement, you all sit around a crudely constructed Ouija board and call upon the spirits of the dead couple to ask: “Who killed you?” The board spells out the name of the defendant. The next day, you return a guilty verdict to the court.

Sounds too absurd to be true? Well, in 1994 an English jury did consult a Ouija board (a retrial was ordered, and the defendant was found guilty again). But it is no more absurd than a jury being directed by the courts to use an assessment of body language to make a judgment. Judicial directions in Scotland advise jurors that they can “look at the content of witnesses’ evidence, [and] their body language in giving it”. Similarly, in England and Wales, jurors are instructed not to take so many notes during a trial that they are “unable to observe the manner/demeanour of the witnesses as they give their evidence”. It appears that the UK’s judicial system is no different from most of the population in assuming there is a clear association between body language or demeanour and deception – while being ignorant of the fact that looking at these to determine an individual’s honesty is not trustworthy.

Kirsty King is a lecturer in communication at UCL. She is the author of The Language of Lies

What does it actually take to win a World Cup? Talent? Tactics? A functioning democracy? Not necessarily.

As the 2026 World Cup begins, the largest ever, we analysed all 22 past tournaments to find the common threads that link every single champion.

From the tactical innovations that shocked the world to the political forces that fuelled past victories, history shows there are eight distinct ways to lift the famous trophy.

• Bracketology: predict a path to World Cup victory

• World Cup 2026: guide to all 1,248 players

From ludicrously fun 80s love affairs to outrageously scandalous drama, this has already been a year of great television. Here are our favourite shows of the year

***

Exclusive: Ukrainian president says ‘small mistake can break a big friendship’ in wide-ranging interview with Guardian

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said the decision by some Reform UK councils to take down the Ukrainian flag was the kind of “small mistake that can break a big friendship”, as he underlined the significance of strong bilateral relations.

The Ukrainian president tempered his rare foray into UK domestic politics by stressing how much the two countries “need each other” in the battle against Russia, which he said posed a threat not only to Ukraine but to Britain too.

Netanyahu acknowledges pause in fighting in TV speech but vows forceful response to future attacks

Fears of a return to a full-scale regional war in the Middle East eased on Monday as Israel and Iran said they had halted attacks on each other after an appeal from Donald Trump to “immediately stop shooting”.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, acknowledged the halt in fighting with Iran in a televised speech, but vowed to respond “with force” to future attacks.

Companies such as Apple and Google have until September to install software or face legislation, says PM

Apple and Google have been given until September to install software that blocks explicit images on children’s mobile phones or face legislation to force them to do so, Keir Starmer said on Monday.

The prime minister said tech companies must activate nudity-detection algorithms or other technical solutions on smartphones and tablets to prevent users taking photos or sharing images of genitalia unless they are verified as adults.

Fire in Bermondsey sends huge plumes rising high over the city and disrupts train travel in the area

Fifteen fire engines and about 100 firefighters have been called to tackle a major fire at a recycling centre in south London.

Fire control officers were first called just after 5.30pm on Monday to the centre on Landmann Way in Bermondsey.