The UK government has hit back at suggestions the tariff agreement it reached with the US last week could be damaging to China.

It said there was “no such thing as a veto on Chinese investment” in the deal.

The UK-US agreement rowed back on big hikes in tariffs on metals and cars imposed by President Donald Trump, but it also included conditions requiring the UK to “promptly meet” US demands on the “security of the supply chains” of steel and aluminium products exported to America.

Beijing fears this could see it being excluded from supplying US-bound goods to the UK, telling the Financial Times it was a “basic principle” that bilateral trade deals should not target other countries.

At a regular press conference on Tuesday China’s foreign ministry spokesperson was asked about the UK’s trade agreements with the US and India.

Lin Jian said: “As for the trade agreement… between the UK and relevant countries, I would like to point out that cooperation between countries should not target or harm the interests of third parties.”

China is the world’s second biggest economy and the UK’s fifth biggest trading partner. In 2024 total bilateral trade hit £98.4bn.

In response to the latest comments from China, the UK government said the agreement with the US was “in the national interest to secure thousands of jobs across key sectors, protect British businesses and lay the groundwork for greater trade in the future”.

Any “external provisions” in the agreement were “not designed to undermine mutually beneficial economic relations with any third country”, it said.

“As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury clearly stated, there is no such thing as a veto on Chinese investment in this trade deal.”

It added that “trade and investment with China remain important to the UK.”

Under the UK-US deal Trump’s blanket 10% tariffs on imports from countries around the world still applies to most UK goods entering the US.

But the deal has reduced or removed tariffs on some of the UK’s exports, including steel and aluminium.

The terms of the agreement say the UK will “work to promptly meet US requirements on the security of the supply chains of steel and aluminium products intended for export to the United States and on the nature of ownership of relevant production facilities”.

The US and China have been engaged in a tariffs war since the beginning of this year.

The US buys much more from China ($440bn) than it sells to it ($145bn), which is something Trump has long been unhappy with.

His reasoning in part for introducing tariffs, and higher ones on countries which sell more to the US than they buy, is to encourage US consumers to buy more American-made goods, increase the amount of tax raised and boost manufacturing jobs.

However, on Monday, Trump said talks over the weekend between the US and China had resulted in a “total reset” in terms of trade between the two countries, with tariffs either being cut or suspended on both sides.

The result is that additional US tariffs on Chinese imports – that’s the extra tariffs imposed in this recent stand-off – will fall from 145% to 30%, while recently-hiked Chinese tariffs on some US imports will fall from 125% to 10%.

The move is seen as helping to defuse the trade war between the world’s two biggest economies.

At least 50 Palestinians have been killed in a series of Israeli air strikes in northern Gaza, a local hospital says.

The Indonesian hospital reported that 22 children and 15 women were among the dead after a number of homes in Jabalia town and refugee camp were hit overnight. A video shared online appeared to show at least a dozen bodies on the floor there.

The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports. It had warned residents of Jabalia and neighbouring areas to evacuate on Tuesday after a Palestinian armed group launched rockets into Israel.

It came as the UN’s humanitarian affairs chief urged members of the UN Security Council to take action to “prevent genocide” in Gaza.

Speaking at a meeting in New York on Tuesday, Tom Fletcher accused Israel of “deliberately and unashamedly imposing inhumane conditions on civilians”.

He also called on Israel to lift its 10-week blockade on Gaza and criticised the Israeli-US plan to take over the distribution of humanitarian aid by using private companies, saying it was a “fig leaf for further violence and displacement” of Palestinians.

Israel’s envoy to the UN, Danny Danon, said the accusations were “baseless and outrageous”.

He insisted the existing system for aid was “broken” because it was being used to help Hamas’s war effort – an allegation both the UN and the armed group have denied.

Local health officials said a total of 70 people were killed in Israeli strikes across Gaza on Wednesday, most of them around Jabalia.

Residents of the northern area reported hearing multiple explosions overnight, and videos shared by activists showed flames lighting up the sky.

As he clambered over the rubble of a collapsed building, Hadi Moqbel, 42, said several members of his family were killed.

“They fired two rockets, they told us the house of Moqbel [had been hit],” he told Reuters news agency.

“We came running, we saw body parts on the ground, children killed, [a] woman killed and a baby killed… He was two months old.”

On Tuesday night, the Israeli military issued what it described as a “final warning” to residents of Jabalia town, Jabalia camp and five neighbouring areas.

It ordered them to evacuate immediately to shelters in Gaza City, saying Israeli forces would “attack with great force any area from which rockets are launched”.

Earlier, the military said three rockets launched from Gaza crossed into Israeli territory, triggering sirens in Israeli border communities and the town of Sderot. Two of the rockets were intercepted by the Israeli air force and the third fell in an open area, it added.

Palestinian Islamic Jihad, an armed group allied to Hamas, said it launched the rockets in response to what it called “Zionist massacres”.

Israel cut off all deliveries of aid and other supplies to Gaza on 2 March and resumed its offensive against Hamas on 18 March after the collapse of a two-month ceasefire.

The UN says 20% of the 2.1 million population has been displaced again, and that 70% of Gaza is now either within Israeli military “no-go” zones or under evacuation orders.

Severe shortages of food and fuel have forced all UN-supported bakeries and more than 60% of the 180 community kitchens providing hot meals to shut down.

A UN-backed assessment released on Monday warned that the entire population was facing high levels of acute food insecurity, with half a million people facing starvation.

The UN has said Israel is obliged under international law to ensure food and medical supplies for Gaza’s population. Israel has said it is complying with international law and there is no shortage of aid because thousands of lorry loads entered during the ceasefire.

Palestinians are hoping Hamas’s decision on Monday to release the last living Israeli-American hostage in Gaza, Edan Alexander, could pave the way for a possible new ceasefire deal with Israel and the end of the blockade.

Hamas said it freed Mr Alexander as a goodwill gesture to US President Donald Trump, who is visiting the Middle East this week.

On Wednesday, Trump told a summit of Gulf leaders in Riyadh that he was hopeful that more of the 58 hostages still being held by Hamas in Gaza would be freed.

“All hostages must be released as a stepping stone to peace,” he said. “I think that’s going to be happening.”

At the same time, his special envoys Steve Witkoff and Adam Boehler participated in a new round of talks in Qatar.

Witkoff told hostages’ relatives in Israel on Tuesday: “The president’s not going to tolerate anything other than everybody coming home.”

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said Israel is preparing to expand its military offensive in Gaza and insisted that nothing will stop the war.

He told injured reservist soldiers on Monday that Israeli forces would go into the territory in the coming days “with full force to complete the operation” to destroy Hamas.

“There will be no situation where we stop the war. A temporary ceasefire might happen, but we are going all the way,” he added.

On Tuesday, a massive Israeli air strike on the European hospital’s compound in Khan Younis killed at least 28 people, according to local officials.

The Israeli military described it as “a precise strike on Hamas terrorists who were operating in a command-and-control centre” underneath the hospital.

Israeli media reports said the target was Mohammed Sinwar, who is believed to have become the top Hamas leader in Gaza after his brother Yahya was killed by Israeli forces last October.

Israel launched a military campaign to destroy Hamas in response to an unprecedented cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 52,928 people have been killed in Gaza since then, including 2,799 since the Israeli offensive resumed, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

The Vatican’s Santa Marta guesthouse has 128 rooms. From 7 May, it will be filled with cardinals participating in the conclave to elect the next Pope. But one room in the guesthouse is still sealed with a red ribbon, as it has been since its occupant died there on Easter Monday.

That suite will only be reopened when the new pope is chosen. The ribbon remains a tangible reminder of the man whose shoes the cardinals are looking to fill – but Pope Francis’s presence looms large over this conclave in many profound ways.

He spent 12 years in the role and appointed around 80% of the cardinals who will select his successor. He also looked to radically shake up the workings of the Catholic Church, moving its centre of gravity away from its hierarchy at the Vatican in the direction of the rank-and-file faithful all over the world, and focused on the poor and marginalised.

My conversations with cardinals and those assessing the needs of the Church in the days leading to this papal election almost always end up looking at what is required through the prism of what Pope Francis did in the role.

While in recent days there appears to have been a growing coalescence around the idea that Francis’s work should be built on, some of his critics remain far from convinced. So might there be enough of them to sway the vote as the Church attempts to reconcile the different outlooks and realities it faces around the globe?

During the two weeks that followed the Pope’s death, the cardinals met almost daily at the Vatican for pre-conclave gatherings known as general congregations.

While the conclave in the Sistine Chapel is limited to cardinals who haven’t yet reached the age of 80 (133 will participate in this one), these preliminary meetings are open to all 252 cardinals. Each attendee was given up to five minutes to air their views, though we know that some took longer.

It was during such a meeting ahead of the last conclave of 2013, in a speech lasting less than four minutes, that Pope Francis – then known as Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina – made an impact, talking of a need to connect with those in the far reaches of the Catholic world.

As Pope, he made a conscious drive to appoint cardinals from such places. It is why this is the most diverse conclave there has ever been. For the first time Cape Verde, Haiti, South Sudan, Tonga, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea and Rwanda will be represented.

That diversity has already made its mark: the pre-conclave meetings are said to have brought to the fore just how different the needs of the Church appear to be depending on where in the world they are viewed.

In Europe, for example, a primary consideration for some might be finding ways to reinvigorate and make relevant the mission of the Church in the face of shrinking congregations, whereas elsewhere – in African or Asian countries – concerns may revolve around social issues, poverty and conflict resolution.

A prospective pope is likely to be one who has at least shown recognition of those very different realities.

The official titles that the new pope will inherit gives a sense of the breadth of the role: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City among them.

While some relate to the deeply spiritual, the last of those titles suggests the need for a statesman too, given that the pope is leader of a country, albeit the world’s smallest.

“Unlike your average state, the agenda of the Vatican is driven to an extent by where the pope reigning at the time puts their emphasis,” says Chris Trott, British ambassador to the Holy See. “On the face of it a very tiny state, [but it is] one that punches many, many times above its weight.

“And Pope Francis had 50 million followers on Twitter, so [it is] a very, very small state and an incredible global influencer.”

Pope Francis chose to amplify this part of the role, becoming a powerful global spokesman on behalf of those on the margins, including the poor and victims of war.

He also tried to play the role of peacemaker, though not everyone thought he was successful in that regard, in relation to China and Russia in particular.

According to Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the most senior Catholic figure in England and Wales, this expansion of the role is one reason so many even outside the faith are invested in the outcome of the conclave.

“There is a sense that the Pope in the person of Pope Francis became a figure who addressed everybody in the world… religious people and even those who do not have a religious affiliation,” he says.

“I’m more and more aware that it’s not just Catholics who are interested in this.”

For many voting cardinals, it is primarily issues within the Catholic Church that are under the spotlight, which brings about the question of the type of pope they want as a manager, and someone who runs the Church’s administrative body and its ministries.

While Pope Francis worked on improving the way the Church deals with the huge issues of sexual abuse and of financial corruption, it is his successor who will have to ensure that reforms are evenly applied across the Catholic world.

Even supporters of Pope Francis’s efforts to make changes to the way the Church relates to its rank-and-file believers, and the way he built bridges with those outside the faith, were sometimes left confused about how exactly he envisioned things should work.

Pope Francis changed the tone on social issues through comments he made, talking openly about subjects ranging from climate change to financial transparency within the Vatican. But throughout his papacy, some were unclear about what he meant or how it would be applied.

One mission he had was to take some of the power and decision-making away from the Vatican hierarchy and into the hands of rank-and-file Catholics.

Over nearly four years, at great effort, he commissioned what was, in effect, a poll of many of the world’s Catholics to find out what mattered to them. Lay people were invited to participate in the most recent bishop’s conference where the results of the survey were discussed.

The biggest issues raised related to greater roles for women in the running of the church and welcoming LGBT+ Catholics. But the meeting ended in some confusion, with little in the form of tangible steps forward and little clarity as to how lay people will help steer the future direction of the Church.

So, there is a general keenness for greater clarity from the new pope.

Throughout his pontificate, some vocal traditionalists opposed what they saw as Pope Francis straying from Church teaching and long-standing tradition.

In the pre-conclave meetings of cardinals, a number of those over the age of 80 (who because of their age would not be involved in voting) took the opportunity to play their part.

Most contributions remained secret, but one that was reported was that of 83-year-old Italian cardinal, Beniamino Stella. He criticised Pope Francis for “imposing his own ideas” by attempting to move Church governance away from the clergy.

And yet during the homily, or religious speech, at Pope Francis’s funeral, what appeared to resonate with the public in attendance – judging by the volume of the applause – was talk of the themes Francis chose to champion: the dignity of migrants, an end to war, and the environment.

This applause would have been heard loud and clear by the rows of cardinals.

In some senses, Pope Francis did have clarity in focusing on the Church being relevant to people in their daily lives and, indeed, their struggles. He was clear about connecting with the world outside the faith too.

“There is a sense that in the voice of the pope, there’s a voice of something that is needed,” says Cardinal Nichols. “For some people it’s a moral compass, for some people it’s the sense of being accepted, for some people it’s the insistence that we must look at things from the point of view of the poorest.

“That’s a voice that has fallen silent and our task is to find someone who can carry that forward.”

From the death of Pope Francis to the moment cardinals checked into the Santa Marta guesthouse and its overflow residences, there appeared to be a trend towards a desire for continuity of what Pope Francis had achieved.

Though perhaps that vision of continuity is one that could bring along more of his sceptics, in a way that was pragmatic. The word “unity” has been talked of a lot, after a period where the divides between supporters and detractors of the Pope’s vision could sometimes become ugly.

But in the end, when they step into the Sistine Chapel, the holiest of voting chambers, for all the pragmatism they may have taken into consideration before they cast their ballot, they will be urged to let God and the Holy Spirit guide them.

Top picture credit: Getty Images

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

Two weeks after a deadly militant attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, India has launched a series of strikes on sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

The Indian defence ministry said the strikes – named “Operation Sindoor” – were part of a “commitment” to hold those responsible for the 22 April attack which left 25 Indians and one Nepali national dead “accountable”.

But Pakistan, which has denied any involvement in last month’s attack, has described the strikes as “unprovoked”, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif saying the “heinous act of aggression will not go unpunished”.

So what exactly has happened – and how did India and Pakistan get here?

Delhi said in the early hours of Wednesday morning that nine different locations had been targeted in both Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan.

It said these sites were “terrorist infrastructure” – places where attacks were “planned and directed”.

It emphasised that it had not hit any Pakistani military facilities, saying its “actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature”.

According to Pakistan, three different areas were hit: Muzaffarabad and Kotli in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, and Bahawalpur in the Pakistani province of Punjab.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif told GeoTV that the strikes hit civilian areas, adding that India’s claim of “targeting terrorist camps” is false.

Ahmed Sharif, a spokesperson for the Pakistani military, later told the BBC that seven people, including two children, had been killed in the strikes.

The strikes come after weeks of rising tension between the nuclear-armed neighbours over the shootings in the picturesque resort town of Pahalgam.

The 22 April attack by a group of militants saw 26 people killed, with survivors saying the militants were singling out Hindu men.

It was the worst attack on civilians in the region in two decades, and sparked widespread anger in India.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the country would hunt the suspects “till the ends of the Earth” and that those who planned and carried it out “will be punished beyond their imagination”.

However, India has not named any group it suspects carried out the attack in Pahalgam and it remains unclear who did it.

But Indian police have alleged two of the attackers were Pakistani nationals, with Delhi accusing Pakistan of supporting militants – a charge Islamabad denies. It says it has nothing to do with the 22 April attacks.

In the two weeks since, both sides had taken tit-for-tat measures against each other – including expelling diplomats, suspending visas and closing border crossings.

But many expected it would escalate to some sort of cross-border strike – as seen after the Pulwama attacks which left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead in 2019.

Kashmir is claimed in full by India and Pakistan, but administered only in part by each since they were partitioned following independence from Britain in 1947.

The countries have fought two wars over it.

But more recently, it has been attacks by militants which have brought the two countries to the brink. Indian-administered Kashmir has seen an armed insurgency against Indian rule since 1989, with militants targeting security forces and civilians alike.

This was the first major attack on civilians since India revoked Article 370 that gave Kashmir semi-autonomous status in 2019.

Following the decision, the region saw protests but also witnessed militancy wane and a huge increase in the number of tourists visiting the region.

In 2016, after 19 Indian soldiers were killed in Uri, India launched “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control – the de facto border between India and Pakistan – targeting militant bases.

In 2019, the Pulwama bombing, which left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead, prompted airstrikes deep into Balakot – the first such action inside Pakistan since 1971 – sparking retaliatory raids and an aerial dogfight.

Neither spiralled, but the wider world remains alert to the danger of what could happen if it did. Attempts have been made by various countries and diplomats around the world to stop the current situation escalating.

Already, UN chief Antonio Guterres has called for “maximum restraint”, while US President Donald Trump said he hoped the fighting “ends very quickly”.

On Wednesday evening, under the domed ceiling of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel, 133 cardinals will vote to elect the Catholic Church’s 267th pope.

The day will begin at 10:00 (09:00 BST) with a mass in St Peter’s Basilica. The service, which will be televised, will be presided over by Giovanni Battista Re, the 91-year-old Cardinal Dean who was also the celebrant of Pope Francis’ funeral.

In the early afternoon, mobile signal within the territory of the Vatican will be deactivated to prevent anyone taking part in the conclave from contacting the outside world.

Around 16:15 (15:15 BST), the 133 cardinal electors will gather in the Pauline Chapel and form a procession to the Sistine Chapel.

All the while they will be singing a litany and the hymn Veni Creator – an invocation to the Holy Spirit, which is seen as the guiding hand that will help cardinals choose the new Pope.

Once in the Sistine Chapel, one hand resting on a copy of the Gospel, the cardinals will pronounce the prescribed oath of secrecy which precludes them from ever sharing details about how the new Pope was elected.

When the last of the electors has taken the oath, a meditation will be held. Then, the Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations Diego Ravelli will announce “extra omnes” (“everybody out”).

He is one of three ecclesiastical staff allowed to stay in the Sistine Chapel despite not being a cardinal elector, even though they will have to leave the premises during the counting of the votes.

The moment “extra omnes” is pronounced marks the start of the cardinals’ isolation – and the start of the conclave.

The word, which comes from the Latin for “cum clave”, or “locked with key” is slightly misleading, as the cardinals are no longer locked inside; rather, on Tuesday Vatican officials closed the entrances to the Apostolic Palace – which includes the Sistine Chapel- with lead seals which will remain until the end of the proceedings. Swiss guards will also flank all the entrances to the chapel.

Diego Ravelli will distribute ballot papers, and the cardinals will proceed to the first vote soon after.

While nothing forbids the Pope from being elected with the first vote, it has not happened in centuries. Still, that first ballot is very important, says Austen Ivereigh, a Catholic writer and commentator.

“The cardinals who have more than 20 votes will be taken into consideration. In the first ballot the votes will be very scattered and the electors know they have to concentrate on the ones that have numbers,” says Ivereigh.

He adds that every other ballot thereafter will indicate which of the cardinals have the momentum. “It’s almost like a political campaign… but it’s not really a competition; it’s an effort by the body to find consensus.”

If the vote doesn’t yield the two-third majority needed to elect the new pope, the cardinals go back to guesthouse Casa Santa Marta for dinner. It is then, on the sidelines of the voting process, that important conversations among the cardinals take place and consensus begins to coalesce around different names.

According to Italian media, the menu options consist of light dishes which are usually served to guests of the residence, and includes wine – but no spirits. The waiters and kitchen staff are also sworn to secrecy and cannot leave the grounds for the duration of the conclave.

From Thursday morning, cardinals will be taking breakfast between 06:30 (05:30 BST) and 07:30 (06:30 BST) ahead of mass at 08:15 (07:15 BST). Two votes then take place in the morning, followed by lunch and rest. In his memoirs, Pope Francis said that was when he began to receive signals from the other cardinals that serious consensus was beginning to form around him; he was elected during the first afternoon vote. The last two conclaves have all concluded by the end of the second day.

There is no way of knowing at this stage whether this will be a long or a short conclave – but cardinals are aware that dragging the proceedings on could be interpreted as a sign of gaping disagreements.

As they discuss, pray and vote, outside the boarded-up windows of the Sistine Chapel thousands of faithful will be looking up to the chimney to the right of St Peter’s Basilica, waiting for the white plume of smoke to signal that the next pope has been elected.

US and Chinese officials are set to start talks this week to try to deescalate a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies.

Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng will attend the talks in Switzerland from 9 to 12 May, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs says.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer will represent Washington at the meeting, their offices announced.

Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has imposed new import taxes on Chinese goods of up to 145%. Beijing has hit back with levies on some goods from the US of 125%.

But global trade experts have told the BBC that they expect negotiations to take several months.

It will be the first high-level interaction between the two countries since Chinese Vice-President Han Zheng attended Trump’s inauguration in January.

Mr Bessent said he looked forward to rebalancing the international economic system to better serve the interests of the US.

“My sense is that this will be about de-escalation, not about the big trade deal, but we’ve got to de-escalate before we can move forward,” he said in an interview with Fox News.

“If the United States wants to resolve the issue through negotiations, it must face up to the serious negative impact of unilateral tariff measures on itself and the world,” a Chinese commerce ministry spokesperson said on Wednesday morning.

Chinese State Media reported that Beijing had decided to engage with the US after fully considering global expectations, the country’s interests and appeals from American businesses.

The report added that China’s is open to talks but reiterated that if the country decides to continue to fight this trade war – it will fight to the end.

The trade war has triggered turmoil in financial markets and sent shockwaves across global trade.

Two trade experts told the BBC that they were not particularly optimistic about the talks, at least in the initial phase.

“You have to start somewhere, so I’m not saying it isn’t worthwhile. Just unlikely to be the launch event people are hoping to see,” said Deborah Elms, Head of Trade Policy at the Hinrich Foundation.

“We should expect to see a lot of back and forth, just like what happened last time in 2018,” Henry Gao, Professor of Law at Singapore Management University and a former Chinese lawyer on the World Trade Organization secretariat said.

“I would expect the talks to drag on for several months or even more than a year”.

Financial markets in the Asia-Pacific region were mixed after the announcements, while US stock futures rose.

Stock futures are contracts to buy or sell an underlying asset at a future date and are an indication of how markets will trade when they open.

Investors are also waiting for the US central bank to make its latest announcement on interest rates on Wednesday afternoon.

Additional reporting by Bianca Mascarenhas

Follow the twists and turns of Trump’s second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher’s weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

Polls have closed in the Westminster by-election in Runcorn and Helsby on the same day as local elections in parts of England.

The by-election was triggered by the resignation of Mike Amesbury, who was convicted earlier this year of assaulting a constituent.

On 27 February, Amesbury was given a 10-week prison sentence and taken straight to HMP Altcourse in Liverpool.

After three nights behind bars, a judge agreed to suspend Amesbury’s jail term for two years.

Under concerted pressure to quit the House of Commons, Amesbury – who lost the Labour whip after he was arrested last autumn and has since been sitting as an independent MP – agreed to stand down.

Runcorn and Helsby includes the towns of Runcorn, Frodsham and Helsby, as well as various villages and a significant rural area.

In total, 22% of the constituency is classed as a built-up area, 60% rural and 14% as water or wetland.

It has a population of 93,520, with 21% of residents under 18, 57% aged 18-64 and 21% over 65.

Runcorn and Helsby is a new constituency that was only created in time for the general election in July 2024.

More than half of it (51.2%) came from the former constituency of Weaver Vale, with 37.1% from Halton and the remainder from three other former constituencies – Ellesmere Port and Neston, Eddisbury, and City of Chester.

At the 2024 general election, Amesbury won Runcorn and Helsby for Labour with 52.9% of the vote, a majority of 14,696.

Reform UK came second with 18% of the vote, ahead of the Conservatives on 16%, the Green Party with 6.4%, and the Liberal Democrats with 5.1%.

Two smaller parties received 1.4% between them.

Amesbury was the Labour MP for Weaver Vale from June 2017 until the seat was abolished before the general election.

He gained the seat from Conservative Graham Evans, who had been the constituency’s MP since 2010.

Meanwhile, from its creation in 1983, Halton was always held by Labour.

Derek Twigg – who is now the MP for Widnes and Halewood – held it from 1997.

This will be Sir Keir Starmer’s first by-election as prime minister.

A lot has happened in the nine months since Labour swept to power, with several tax rises announced in the Budget, and ongoing negotiations with President Trump about world trade and the war in Ukraine.

University of Liverpool Professor Jon Tonge recently told BBC Politics North West that, as one of the safest Labour seats in the country, it would be “quite some feat” if another party were to take Runcorn and Helsby.

If recent opinion polls are anything to go by, though, Reform UK may well be confident heading into the by-election, not least because they came second there in July.

The Conservatives will be hoping for signs of a recovery too. They came third in Runcorn and Helsby last time around, and they were not far behind Reform.

There is a lot at stake for everyone.

A total of 15 candidates are standing in the by-election.

Listed alphabetically, they are as follows:

• Catherine Anne Blaiklock (English Democrats)
• Dan Clarke (Liberal Party)
• Chris Copeman (Green Party)
• Paul Duffy (Liberal Democrats)
• Peter Ford (Workers Party)
• Howling Laud Hope (Monster Raving Loony Party)
• Sean Houlston (Conservatives)
• Jason Philip Hughes (Volt UK)
• Alan McKie (independent)
• Graham Harry Moore (English Constitution Party)
• Paul Andrew Murphy (Social Democratic Party)
• Sarah Pochin (Reform)
• Karen Shore (Labour)
• John Stevens (Rejoin EU)
• Michael Williams (independent)

The husband of a British-South African woman found dead at her house in France has said he cannot imagine “the terror and the fear she must have gone through”.

Karen Carter, 65, was found by her friend lying near her car with stab wounds in the village of Trémolat in the Dordogne on Tuesday evening, the state prosecutor said.

Mrs Carter’s husband, Alan, who is in South Africa, said she was “such a decent, lovely person”, and spoke of the family’s shock.

A 69-year-old local woman has been arrested as part of an investigation into the mother-of-four’s death.

A friend who discovered Mrs Carter’s body was questioned by police and later released without charge, the state prosecutor, Sylvie Martins-Guedes, said.

“At this stage, no hypothesis is being favored,” she added.

Mrs Carter had lived in Trémolat for more than a decade, where she ran two holiday rental homes.

“Particularly since Covid, my wife has spent more time there running the gîtes (holiday homes). It’s been very busy, it’s been very successful,” Mr Carter said.

“She was very good at her job and marketing it and getting bookings throughout the year.”

Mr Carter said his cousin, who lives in Trémolat, called him after seeing a post about Mrs Carter’s death on a local community Facebook page.

“She phoned me…to say she’s sorry to tell me and that she thinks Karen has died. That was the first I heard about it,” he said.

“No one had got in touch with me at all to let me know what had happened. I found out through my cousin who happened to see it on a Facebook page.”

He said he got confirmation of Mrs Carter’s death after his assistant phoned local police.

“She managed to get through to the right person. I don’t know how she managed that, but she did.

“He confirmed it, but he didn’t give any details of what happened,” he said, adding that he has relied on news reports for information.

Mr Carter said the village is in shock over her death, adding: “It’s terrible. Such a small village where nothing like this ever happens.”

He described Mrs Carter as an outgoing, friendly person who “wouldn’t hurt a fly”, and said her death has been “traumatic” for his family.

“I’m an introvert, and she’s the exact opposite. She’s an extrovert, she loves people, she loves to have fun. People love her, she has a good heart,” he said.

“She’s the one who would bring home the lost dog, or cat, or whatever. She’s that sort of person. Everyone liked her. That’s why I married her. She’s just lovely.”

In Western Sydney, an audience of Stetson-wearing Australians are sitting in their fold-up camping chairs, swigging beers and eating a spiralled fried potato on a skewer known as a ‘chip on a stick’.

People here are enjoying bull rides, barrel racing and bucking broncos. It feels like a slice of Americana in New South Wales perhaps – but that would miss the point that here, rodeo has become very much an outback Australian tradition in its own right.

In recent months, politics here in Australia could be compared to watching a rodeo. Between conflict in Europe, the Middle East and more recently US President Donald Trump and his threat of global trade wars, every day has brought with it a sharp jolt that changes the dynamics of the campaign trail. Politicians, like these cowboys, have been thrown off course despite their best efforts.

“Tariffs are great,” exclaims rodeo fan Guy Algozzino, who’s dressed in a cowboy hat, a waistcoat and a Western-style bolo tie with an engraved image of a cowboy riding a bull. “We should have had tariff protection many years ago – it looks bad now [but] America’s fantastic … Trump’s the best thing America ever had.”

Other spectators are more nuanced.

“It’s going nuts,” admits Jared Harris, when asked about world politics. “I’m just sitting back and watching. It’s a bit like a show. It’s quite interesting to watch, it’s entertaining. It probably affects me more than I realise, but I just choose to ignore it.”

Australia didn’t worry too much about President Trump’s second coming when he won power back in November. The country had already witnessed a Trump presidency – and weathered it. Australia felt far removed from the shores of America.

But Trump’s second term is panning out very differently. Tariffs – imposed on ally and adversary alike – have travelled the whole world.

Trump doesn’t care about making enemies. But Australia does. People here pride themselves on ‘mateship’ – a value that embodies friendship and loyalty – and that extends to politics too.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said as much when Trump initially announced tariffs without exemptions. This was not “the act of a friend,” said Albanese, while he also committed to not responding in kind.

All of this comes as the country heads to a federal election on 3 May. Candidates would rather focus on domestic issues they can control: cost-of-living, housing and healthcare. Instead, they are forced to grapple with a question that goes right to the heart of Australia’s role in the world: how to deal with a US president as unpredictable as Trump?

In the final few days of campaigning before up to 18 million Australians go to the polls, the Labor Party’s Albanese, who entered power three years ago after promising to invest in social services and tackle climate change, went on a speedy tour of six states. That effort appears to be paying off, with the latest YouGov poll putting Labor on 54 per cent of the two-party vote, versus 47 per cent for the opposition Coalition (an alliance of the Liberals and Nationals). This is a modest turnaround from the beginning of the year, when Labor was consistently lagging the Coalition in polls.

“It’s not the campaign either party thought they would be having,” says Amy Remeikis, chief political analyst at the Australia Institute think tank. “The looming figure of Trump is overshadowing the domestic campaign but also forcing Australia’s leaders to do something they haven’t had to do in a long time – examine Australia’s links to the US.”

The US-Australia relationship has perhaps been taken for granted in these parts. Australia likes the fact the US has long been a dominant military force in the Pacific. Australia relies on its funding and benefits from being part of alliances like Aukus – the far-reaching defence pact between Australia, the UK and the US, designed to counter China – and the Anglo-intelligence alliance Five Eyes.

The rise of China has made Australia even more conscious about having the US on its side. Beijing has expanded its military presence in the Pacific, launching various military exercises in recent years – including one live-fire drill in February that saw Chinese naval vessels just 340 nautical miles from the New South Wales coast. Australia recently announced efforts to expand its navy and now hosts four US military bases – decisions fuelled in part by the rise of China.

It’s all placed extra value on Canberra’s alliance with Washington DC – one that Trump may be throwing into doubt.

Back in February, Trump held a meeting with the UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. He was asked whether they would be discussing Aukus.

“What does that mean?” Trump asked the reporter. After being given an explanation of Aukus, he continued. “We’ll be discussing that … we’ve had a very good relationship with Australia.”

Australia collectively held its breath, then let it out in a big sigh of relief.

A blip maybe – but an indication perhaps of how little Trump thinks about Australia right now. However, Australia, like much of the world, is thinking about the US.

“We don’t have anywhere else to turn,” says David Andrews, senior policy advisor at the National Security College, which is part of the Australian National University in Canberra. “We are physically isolated from everyone. As long as we’ve had European settlement here, we’ve always been concerned about the distance [and] isolation, which is why we’ve always maintained such a strong relationship with first Britain and then the US as the dominant maritime power.”

While only 5% of Australia’s exports go to the US (China is by far Australia’s biggest trading partner), the US still dominates the conversation here.

“This isn’t a time to end alliances,” says Justin Bassi, director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a think tank. “That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.”

And, perhaps counter to the majority view here, Bassi thinks that Australia should support Trump’s moves.

“We should continue to make it clear that any measures the US takes against Australia are unjustified but we should welcome and support American measures to counter Beijing’s malign actions – or for that matter Russia,” he says. “Not to keep Trump happy but because it is in Australia’s interests to constrain the adversary that is undermining our strategic interests.”

A poll published by the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper last month found that 60% of Australians felt Trump’s victory was bad for Australia. That was up from last November when it was just 40%.

And a Lowy Institute poll published two weeks later showed almost two in three Australians held ‘not very much’ or no trust ‘at all’ in the US to act responsibly.

Big questions on transnational alliances are not part of normal campaigning. But when Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton faced each other in their first televised debate, the first question asked by the audience was one on Trump.

Dutton has long stressed that he would be the politician best suited to dealing with the US President. He often cites his experience as a cabinet minister during tariff negotiations in Trump’s first term. But that strategy doesn’t always serve him well.

“He went into the election telling people he and Trump were similar enough that they would get on better, that he was the sort of personality Trump liked,” says Remeikis. “He’s not repeating that now because people don’t want someone to get on with Trump – they want someone who will stand up to him.”

Dutton has had to do some back-pedalling on comments he made earlier in the year. Back in February, after Trump said he had plans to eject Palestinians from Gaza, Dutton called the US president “a deal-maker … a big thinker.”

And he has come in for some criticism amid accusations of copying the US president. He’s talked about cutting public sector jobs, for example. And his Liberal party appointed Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as shadow minister for government efficiency, not too dissimilar to the Doge. But when Senator Price recently started talking about wanting to ‘Make Australia Great Again’ on the campaign trail, Dutton avoided questions over the comments.

Albanese of course has to tread a careful line too. In a world that’s being turned upside down, he’s trying to reassure people he’s a safe pair of hands; that those alliances remain.

That may turn out to be in his favour.

Indeed, some analysts say that Trump’s conduct may be helping Albanese, with voters rushing to support the incumbent during a time of perceived crisis. Just a few months ago, Labor’s re-election was thought unlikely as it consistently polled behind the Coalition. But the final YouGov polling model of the election, published a few days ago, predicted that Labor will win 84 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives – an increased majority.

For Professor Gordon Flake, CEO at Perth USAsia Centre, a think tank, it paints a stark parallel with this week’s election result in Canada – in which the Liberal Party won re-election by riding a backlash of anti-Trump sentiment.

“What we have seen in Canada has been a dramatic shift back towards the incumbent government and that is a rallying around the flag based on attacks on that country,” he says.

“The attacks on Australia haven’t been as severe so it’s not the same degree, but at the same time you’re also seeing a rallying around the current Labor government. Six months ago you thought their re-election would be unlikely; today on the cusp of the election here in Australia, it seems more likely than not – and one of the important factors in that has been developments in Washington DC. “

But whoever wins, they will have a big job on their hands to navigate Australia’s future with its allies.

“We have to make do with the hand we’ve been dealt,” says Andrews. “I expect that we are going to have to be much more ruthlessly self-interested and that’s not comfortable because our foreign policy has generally been based around cooperation, collaboration and multilateralism – so that shared sense of threat that middle powers have of working together to maximise their output.”

Back at the rodeo, the sun’s gone down, the cheerleaders are out and the audience gets ready to watch bucking broncos – the riders shortly afterwards holding on to their steer for as long as possible before being violently thrown to the ground.

Flying above the arena are the flags of Canada and the US, alongside Australia, New Zealand and Brazil. There may not be much of a team spirit among allies right now – but voters here will be keen to see how their next leader rides out the storm.

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

Apple says it is shifting production of most iPhones and other devices to be sold in the US away from China, which has been the focus of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The majority of the iPhones bound for the US market in the coming months will be made in India, while Vietnam will be a major production hub for items like iPads and Apple Watches, chief executive Tim Cook says.

It comes as the technology giant estimated that US import taxes could add about $900m (£677.5m) to its costs this quarter, despite Trump’s decision to spare key electronics from the new tariffs.

The Trump administration has repeatedly said it wants Apple to move production to America.

The estimate comes as firms around the world are scrambling to respond to the huge shifts in global trade triggered by Washington’s trade policies.

On a call with investors on Thursday to discuss the firm’s financial performance, the Apple boss seemed keen to draw attention to its investments in the US.

Mr Cook opened the discussion with a reminder of the company’s plans to invest $500bn across several US states over the next four years.

He also said Apple is shifting its supply chain for US-bound products away from China, but it is India and Vietnam that are poised to be major beneficiaries of that move.

“We do expect the majority of iPhones sold in US will have India as their country of origin,” Mr Cook said.

Meanwhile, Vietnam is expected to be the chief manufacturing hub “for almost all iPad, Mac, Apple Watch and AirPods product sold in the US.”

China will remain the country of origin for the vast majority of total products sold outside the US, he added.

Apple shares had plummeted after Trump announced his administration would levy “reciprocal tariffs” on products imported to the United States, with the aim of persuading companies to manufacture more in the US.

But the administration faced significant pressure to moderate its plans. Shortly after the tariffs went into effect, it announced that certain electronics, including phones and computers, would be exempted.

For now, trade turmoil has left Apple’s sales unscathed.

The company said revenues for the first three months of the year rose 5% from the same period last year, to $95.4bn.

Amazon, another tech giant whose results were being closely watched for signs of tariff damage, likewise said sales were holding up, rising 8% year-on-year in its North America e-commerce business in the most recent quarter.

It forecast similar growth in the months ahead.

“Obviously no one of us knows exactly where tariffs will settle or when,” said Amazon boss Andy Jassy, while noting that the firm has emerged from periods of disruption – like the pandemic – stronger than before.

“We’re often able to weather challenging conditions better than others,” he said. “I’m optimistic this could happen again.”

The shift of the iPhone supply chain to India was “impressive” according to Patrick Moorhead, chief executive of Moor Insights & Strategy.

“This is a marked change from what [Cook] said a few years back when he said that only China can build iPhones,” Mr Moorhead said.

“There is lots of progress that Apple must show here but it’s a pretty good start,” he said.

Amazon is also repositioning itself to increase resilience in the face of the tariffs.

The company said it working to make sure it had a diversity of sellers and Mr Jassy said he felt the firm was well-positioned for the months ahead, pointing to the firm’s scale and its role supplying everyday essentials.

For now, it said sales had not been hurt by the tariff turmoil. If anything, executives said the business may have benefited from some customers starting to stockpile.

Overall sales jumped 9% to $155.7bn in the first three months of 2025, compared with the same period last year, while profits surged more than 60% year-on-year to roughly $17bn.