Rupert Lowe, the MP for Great Yarmouth, will not face criminal charges in relation to an allegation of threats, the Crown Prosecution Service has said.

Lowe was elected as a Reform UK MP in last year’s general election but was suspended by the party in March, amid claims of threats towards the party’s chairman, Zia Yusuf.

Malcolm McHaffie, head of the CPS, said it made the decision not to press charges “following a thorough and detailed review of the evidence”.

“Having considered a number of witness statements, we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction,” he said.

In a statement on X, Lowe said the Metropolitan Police were dropping their investigation into “false allegations” and accused Reform of carrying out a “brutal smear campaign”.

“For the sin of asking legitimate questions about the party’s direction, policies and leadership, I was vilified and targeted,” he said.

Lowe, who now sits as an independent MP, also fiercely attacked his former party’s leader Nigel Farage, calling him a “a coward and a viper”.

Although the CPS statement does not name Lowe, the case relates to an incident at the Palace of Westminster in December 2024.

Mr McHaffie said: “The Crown Prosecution Service’s function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent, and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for a criminal court to consider.

“Based on the careful consideration of this evidence, we have decided that our legal test for a criminal prosecution has not been met.

“The decision is also subject to the Victim’s Right to Review (VRR) scheme which provides a victim or their families in some classes of case with a specifically designed process to exercise the right to review certain CPS decisions not to start a prosecution or to stop a prosecution.”

Reform reported Lowe to the police on 6 March over claims of threats of physical violence directed towards Yusuf.

The party also hired a lawyer to investigate allegations of workplace bullying in his office made by two female employees.

Lowe denied wrongdoing and said the claims were retaliation after he criticised Farage in an interview with the Daily Mail, describing his then-leader’s style as “messianic”.

In her report, the lawyer Jacqueline Perry KC, concluded there was “credible evidence” Lowe and his staff had mistreated two female team members in ways that “seem to amount to harassment”.

She also said Lowe had failed to “address the alleged toxic conduct” of male colleagues in the office.

Responding to her report, Lowe said the claims were “outright lies” and labelled the process “disgustingly bias”.

Reform expelled Lowe from the party, having previously suspended him.

One of the women involved has also made a formal complaint to the Parliamentary Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme.

New rules making migrants wait longer to qualify for permanent settlement in the UK will apply to people already in the country, under government plans.

On Monday the government announced immigrants would now typically have to live in the UK for 10 years before applying for the right to stay here indefinitely – double the current five-year period.

It was previously unclear whether this would apply to the approximately 1.5 million foreign workers who have moved to the UK since 2020.

The BBC understands a document published in the coming weeks will make clear the government is preparing to apply the 10-year qualifying period to those who are already in the UK as well as to new visa applicants.

The move will be subject to a public consultation.

A government source said Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had for some time been concerned that under the current five-year process there is set to be a significant increase in settlement and citizenship applications in the next few years, reflecting the surge in immigration in the early years of this decade.

A policy document published on Monday said there would continue to be a five-year qualification period for non-UK dependents of British citizens.

There will also be shorter qualification periods for people who can show they have contributed to the UK’s “economy and society”.

The announcement was part of a wider package of measures set out on Monday to cut legal migration.

Net migration – the number of people coming to the UK minus the number leaving – climbed to a record 906,000 in June 2023, and last year it stood at 728,000.

In a speech on Monday, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said the measures would mean “settlement becomes a privilege that is earned, not a right, easier if you make a contribution, if you work, pay in, and help rebuild our country.”

Some Labour MPs have raised concerns about the possibility longer qualifying periods for settlement could apply to people already in the UK.

Florence Eshalomi, who chairs the Commons housing, communities and local government committee, told MPs the lack of clarity had left some of her constituents “understandably worried”, with one telling her they were considering leaving the UK “because their settled status here is in jeopardy”.

In response, Cooper told MPs the government would set out further details later this year, with a consultation to follow.

Isa, who came to the UK three years ago with his wife, said the change felt like “fraud” and “a betrayal”.

“We had other options as well – we came here with the promise of settlement status here,” he told BBC Radio 5 Live.

“We need to stay two more years under current rules [to be eligible for permanent settlement].

“This was our plan for life here. And now everything has changed.

“I’m now thinking about moving to the US. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love living here. I was feeling welcome when I came here at first and it’s the first moment that I feel like I’m completely unwelcome.”

Both Isa and his wife work for a tech company, with his wife on a skilled worker visa, while he came to the UK as her dependent.

He suggested the change could see some international companies that rely on foreign workers closing their UK branches.

The 35-year-old added: “I think it has consequences for the high-talent coming here. They’re not sure if the rules are going to change.”

The Migration Observatory said a 10-year route to settlement would make the UK more restrictive than most other high-income countries but comparable to Switzerland and Japan.

It said the move was unlikely to significantly affect migration levels but it would bring in more visa-fee revenue for the Home Office because people on temporary visas pay ongoing fees.

Migrants would also face longer periods without the rights that come with permanent settlement, which include the right to live, work and study in the UK for as long as desired, and to apply for benefits.

Permanent settlement can also be used to apply for British citizenship.

Enny Choudhury, co-legal director at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants charity, said the move was “a cruel betrayal”.

“These are our neighbours and friends. They’ve already built their lives in the UK, and moving the goalposts now will plunge many into deeper debt, uncertainty and trauma,” he said.

“We need a system that offers people a clear, affordable and compassionate pathway to settlement.”

A man whose illegal cannabis factory exploded in a block of flats, killing seven-year-old Archie York, has been jailed for 14 years.

Archie died when the blast caused by Reece Galbraith, 33, obliterated several homes in Benwell in the early hours of 16 October 2024, Newcastle Crown Court heard.

The fatal explosion was caused by a build-up of butane created in the process of making drug-infused sweets in one of the flats by Jason Laws, 35, who was also killed, and Galbraith.

Galbraith, of Gateshead, admitted two counts of manslaughter, with Archie’s mother screaming at him in court that he had killed her son.

Mr Laws and Galbraith were using a ground-floor flat in the block of 12 homes on Violet Close to make so-called cannabis shatter, prosecutor David Brooke KC said.

At about 00:40 BST, their “sophisticated” factory exploded, killing Archie, who lived upstairs with his parents and baby brother, and totally destroying six homes, the court heard.

Archie’s mother Katherine Errington and seven-week-old brother Finlay were buried beneath bricks and debris, the pair having to be dug out and pulled to safety by his father Robbie York, the court heard.

There was then a “fierce fire” and the block ultimately had to be demolished, with dozens of people losing their homes and treasured possessions, Mr Brooke said.

Archie had been asleep in his living room when the blast occurred and was killed instantly, while his father Mr York, mother Katherine Errington and seven-week-old brother Finley all “miraculously” survived, the court heard.

Mr Brooke said there had also been an “enormous impact” on the local area, with the damage and costs to Newcastle City Council valued at £3.7m, 81 adults and 59 children from 51 homes displaced and 10 households having to be permanently rehoused.

Ms Errington told the court her son’s death had “broken us in ways I didn’t know possible” and the family had “lost everything”, adding she felt “survivor’s guilt”.

In a fury, she angrily told Galbraith he “took risks for profit” before screaming at him: “You killed my son.”

“This was your choice,” Ms Errington said. “We will never forgive you for what you did to our beautiful boy.”

The court heard Archie’s beloved dog Chase had also been killed in the blast.

In a statement read to the court, Mr York said he felt “nothing but anger” towards Galbraith and Mr Laws, adding he had “no sympathy” for the latter’s death.

“They were making drugs whilst my family slept upstairs unaware of the danger that was below us,” Mr York said.

He said Galbraith and Mr Laws’ illegal operation had put multiple children at risk while their own children slept safely elsewhere, adding: “We worked hard for what we had and they did nothing but inflict pain and misery on others.”

Another neighbour, who had lost her home of 18 years, said the men were horrible, selfish and greedy.

One woman said her seven-month-old daughter had been blown across her bedroom and was found beneath a pile of drawers and bricks, with the woman fearing the girl would need medical treatment for the rest of her life.

Police found dozens of cannisters of liquid butane gas and expensive equipment used to make cannabis shatter, a brittle substance containing a high concentration of the psychoactive compound THC which is used to form sweets from in the debris, the court heard.

Mr Brooke said butane was used in the production process but it was “highly dangerous” and “extremely flammable”.

He said the cannisters clearly displayed multiple vivid warnings which Mr Laws and Galbraith had ignored.

Galbraith, of Rectory Road, had also been in the flat and was found in the wreckage covered in severe burns, going on to spend a month in a coma in hospital.

His finger prints were found on some of the butane cannisters and on packages of cannabis sweets discovered in Mr Laws’ car, Mr Brooke said, with evidence from his phones showing he had been selling cannabis sweets for at least 11 months before the blast.

Galbraith, who also admitted producing and selling cannabis, had previous convictions related to the drug and was under police investigation at the time of the blast, the court heard.

In mitigation, Richard Wright KC said Galbraith had not intended to harm or kill anybody and was “genuinely sorry”.

Mr Justice Cotter said Archie was a “healthy, happy and much-loved seven-year-old” with a “wonderful and exciting life ahead of him”.

The judge said the effect of the “tragedy” would “never diminish for his parents” and there was nothing which could ease their “life sentence of grief”, adding: “No sentence can cure their unimaginable pain, grief and loss.”

The operation run by Mr Laws and Galbraith was “not easy” and required extensive knowledge and research, much of which included explicit warnings about the “inherently dangerous” process of using butane, the judge said.

He said it was miraculous more people were not seriously injured or killed.

The BBC can help tackle a “crisis of trust” in UK society, the broadcaster’s director general has said.

Tim Davie has used a speech to set out measures he says will allow the broadcaster to play a leading role in reversing a breakdown in trust in information and institutions, as well as combating division and disconnection between people.

They include expanding fact-checking service BBC Verify, giving children lessons about disinformation, and doing more to scrutinise local politicians.

He also said the system of funding the BBC “should be reformed and should be modernised” – but didn’t say whether the licence fee should survive or what should replace it.

Mr Davie used the speech to civic and community leaders in Salford to set out his vision for the corporation’s future, and the role it can play in the UK.

“The BBC is ready to play its full part – not simply defending tradition, but shaping the future,” he said.

“A future where trusted information strengthens democracy, where every child has a fair start, where creativity fuels growth and social capital, and where no-one is left behind in the digital age.”

Mr Davie added: “The future of our civilised, cohesive, democratic society is, for the first time in my life, at risk.”

The BBC’s current royal charter, which sets out the terms and purposes of its existence, expires in 2027, and negotiations with the government about its renewal are ramping up.

The BBC must “reform faster and get more support to avoid decline”, he said.

He said he was not asking for the “status quo” in funding, and said he would “keep an open mind” about the future of the licence fee or what could replace it.

Any future method of funding must ensure the BBC remains a universal service, he stressed.

Asked by BBC News whether the days of the TV licence are over, he replied: “I think a universal payment is not over. What it’s called, I think, is slightly secondary.

“The thing is, do we want a universal fee? The current licence fee works and I think is a very good system, but we are saying that based on changing audience behaviour and these huge changes in the world, the system should be reformed and should be modernised.

“But what we do want is a way in which everyone pays for the BBC fairly, and that is absolutely what we’re hunting for.”

Funding the BBC from advertising or subscription would not “pass the test of building a universal trusted public service”, he said.

He also called for “more help” from the government to fund the World Service, calling it a “priceless national asset”, and saying “the government should invest for significant growth, not survival”.

However, there have been recent reports that ministers have asked BBC bosses to draw up plans for cuts to World Service funding.

He also reminded BBC presenters to avoid calling the corporation’s impartiality into question on social media, after complaints about Match of the Day host Gary Lineker, who shared and deleted a post about Zionism featured an illustration of a rat.

Asked whether Lineker’s post broke the BBC’s social media rules, Mr Davie replied: “The BBC’s reputation is held by everyone, and when someone makes a mistake, it costs us.

“I think we absolutely need people to be exemplars of the BBC values and follow our social media policy. It’s as simple as that.”

In his speech, Mr Davie argued that the BBC could play a key part in making the UK a “global leader in trusted information”, support democracy, boost education and economic growth, and improve digital access.

The BBC’s future would involve “doubling down on impartiality, championing free, fair reporting alongside landmark investigative journalism, investing in BBC Verify and InDepth as well as increasing transparency and holding our nerve amidst culture wars”, he said.

The BBC can “help turn the tide” and improve trust by “dramatically increasing” the amound of news coverage on platforms like YouTube and Tik Tok have a stronger presence amid the online noise.

It will also combine AI agent technology with BBC journalism to create “a new gold standard fact checking tool”, he said, but without relinquishing editorial oversight.

“Our aim is to work globally with other public service broadcasters to ensure a healthy core of fact-based news.”

The BBC will also:

• Expand its expand Local Democracy Reporting Service from focusing on local councils to scrutinise health authorities, police and crime commissioners, and regional mayors
• Create specialist BBC Insight teams across the UK to do more investigative reporting, and expand local BBC Verify and InDepth work
• Launch new political debate radio shows for different areas, modelled on Radio 4’s Any Questions
• Give every child “proper training on disinformation” and potentially develop qualifications in disinformation studies
• Offer a new BBC family account for every parent of a young child, offering support at key milestones from birth to leaving school
• Move more executive roles outside London

The BBC says it is the most trusted news provider in the UK, with 45% of the population naming it as the source they trusted the most in 2024. That is down from 57% a decade ago.

Mr Davie also called for a national plan to switch off traditional broadcast transmissions in the 2030s, and ensure a “smooth” transition to internet-only delivery of programmes.

The BBC could launch its own device aimed at people who haven’t switched to streaming, based on the existing Freely online service, Mr Davie said.

“We want to double down on Freely as a universal free service to deliver live TV over broadband.

“And we want to consider developing and launching a streaming media device with Freely capabilities built in, with a radically simplified user interface specifically designed to help those yet to benefit from IP services.”

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.