"Papal successions are not like presidential transitions," said Anthony Faiola and Michelle Boorstein at The Washington Post. New popes do not "openly set about undoing the legacy" of their predecessors. But much can change in "style, emphasis, guidance and law".

For an example, one need look no further than Pope Francis himself, who departed from the conservatism of Benedict XVI to shepherd the Catholic Church in a more liberal direction. But those changes didn't come without controversy, and his successor could well decide to chart a new course altogether.

What did the commentators say?
Pope Francis "was not considered a radical" when he was chosen by the conclave in 2013 – indeed it is doubtful the cardinals "knew what they were ushering in", said Molly Olmstead for Slate. So there is no guarantee the next conclave will choose a successor "who shares Francis' more progressive ideals".

The conversation usually focuses on "progressive" and "traditionalist" factions, said Katherine Kelaidis at Vox. But while ideological differences will certainly divide the conclave, another pressing factor is that "what the average Christian looks like and where the average Christian lives" is quickly changing. Although the church is in decline in North America and Europe, but rising in Latin America, Asia and Africa, "power centres have stayed firmly in the West".

Indeed, while the future of the progressive Catholic Church ushered in by Francis is up in the air, the pontiff's key legacy – his turn towards the "Global South" – is likely to stick, said Olmstead. Whoever comes next, it will be difficult for him to "walk back the de-Westernisation of the church".

What next?
One of Francis' reforms was his reshaping of the College of Cardinals that will choose his successor, making it more diverse and putting both progressives and traditionalists in key positions, said Ed Kilgore at New York magazine.

This means that now, everything is in play: the new pope could "be a protege of Francis, or someone inclined to turn back clocks". And the "geographically and linguistically diverse cardinals" whom he put in place "barely know each other", said Olmstead – further increasing the unpredictability of the process.

The Labour government's Employment Rights Bill will amount to a "banter ban" if it's allowed to go ahead, critics have said.

A particular passage of the bill, which addresses "harassment by third parties", is being seen in some quarters as an effective ban on "discussion of sensitive subjects such as religion or views on transgender rights", said Jessica Elgot in The Guardian.

The government says that particular clause is designed to protect workers from sexual harassment by customers. But, there are concerns that pub customers could be asked to leave or bar staff could begin to launch tribunals if an overheard conversation is taken as offensive.

'Pubs will no longer be a safe haven'
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that without guidance, employers could face "complexity", which could lead to "excessive limitations on debate", something that critics, like Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, claim "could lead to the end of pub banter", said Elgot.

The pub has always been the "one place" people "felt free to speak our minds" away from home, and "although these ancient freedoms still exist", the impending bill will mean "pubs will no longer be a safe haven", said Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail.

The bill is still making its way through Parliament, with some peers in the House of Lords, including Conservative peer and Free Speech Union founder Toby Young, demanding that certain venues are excluded from the bill, including pubs and universities.

'Banter is a tiresome noise'
But in fact, even without those exclusions, the bill will still mean people are "able to talk freely in pubs" and will ensure "employers take reasonable steps to protect workers from aggressive customers", said TUC general secretary Paul Nowak.

"Any sane proponent of Britain's liberal democratic values should be angry", said Zoe Strimpel in The Spectator, as the bill could "equate to a clampdown on normal back-and-forth between human beings". But while the bill should "not threaten conversation", would it be such a bad thing if it were able to "outlaw banter full stop"?

Banter is a "tiresome noise" and "often a synonym for sexual inquisition" in which there is "no place for the sensitive or thinking person" and "certainly not women", she wrote.  

With Disney+ pumping out so many "lifeless" spin-offs these days, "Star Wars" can be a "struggle", said Jonathan Dean in The Times. The "anomaly" was "Andor", an "innovative" political thriller that arrived on the streaming platform in 2022, and "like a lightsaber at the end of the tunnel, promised to return".

Season one followed thief-turned-rebel-spy Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) as he "forged the rebellion" against the Empire, five years before the events of the 2016 film, "Rogue One". The second instalment picks up a year after the first, with the "web of rebels spreading", while the Empire "clamps down" with more oppressive measures.

While the first season was a "kind of awakening", said Sophie Butcher in Empire, series two is more of a "clear-eyed look" at what it takes to challenge "corrupt, genocidal power". Despite viewers knowing how Cassian's story will end, the second instalment of "Andor" remains "urgent, compelling, excellent television".

With its "riveting" performances, unparalleled costumes and nerve-jangling action scenes, it's a series that will leave you "breathless", said Erik Kain in Forbes. In all, "Andor" is a "perfect" 'Star Wars' show" and a "masterclass" in creating a prequel. "I can't wait to watch it all over again."

"Beautifully made" and "genuinely moving", added Butcher in Empire, Gilroy's second season of "Andor" is a triumph. "This is 'Star Wars' – and small-screen storytelling in general – at its best."

Why Donald Trump couldn't honour the Pope
Freddie Hayward in The New Statesman
Donald Trump may be the "funniest politician" of the 21st century, writes Freddie Hayward, but he "only hits the heights of comedy" when something is as "profound as Heaven and Hell". His "clipped eulogy" to Pope Francis was "fitting", because the pontiff "opposed the type of politics which the president represents" and the president is "funny" in "religious moments" because his "arrogance and self-centredness" is "deeply un-Christian". So it's "no wonder" he was "more interested in the Easter Bunny" than paying tribute to the Pope.

If only it were as simple as no more excluded children
Stephen Bush in the Financial Times
There's a "growing movement" in England to stop the use of exclusions as a "tool for punishment" in schools, writes Stephen Bush. The campaigners have claimed there's a "'pipeline' from exclusion to prison" but it's "more complicated" than that. While "improving social policy outcomes" has a "key role to play", so does "actually removing violent offenders from the place they have committed those offences, in part to protect their victims".

For England to assert itself once more, the nation will need its own parliament
Philip Johnston in The Telegraph
Who will be celebrating St George's Day? asks Philip Johnston. Around the country are a few "desultory events" including "morris dancers, hog roasts and a bit of dragon-slaying but that's about it". It's because the English "have always considered overt nationalism to be in bad taste and just a bit demeaning". One solution "would be to establish an English parliament" to allow England to "exist as a political construct in order to rediscover its identity".